Can Christians use birth control?

Susi that was too too funny lol lol lol. And I totally agree with you.

Oh good Lord

My grammar was so Palinesque!

LOL Heyford. Can you imagine?

Aaron - I love this sentence in the answer.

Christians make big mistakes when they turn principles into laws.

GGMS - You are just too funny!

No, Palinesque speech would have been "how's that Catholicky, Canony stuff workin' out for ya?

as for birth control, sadly, it's yet another point upon which even Christians can't agree. Which is why you have some that are okay with it, and others, such as in Florida, trying to outlaw it for everybody.

*channels Beavis*... heh heh... he...he said "licky"..

I think Susi had the best point, that being it's against CATHOLIC CANON LAW, meaning it's against the rules for Catholics according to the Vatican, however, I don't believe any other Christian denomination prohibits it.

HEY SUSI, what...............you don't want a covey of curtain climbers runnin around, hehehehehehehehe...............................

Christians make big mistakes when they turn principles into laws.

Lola, I agree with this statement as well. As for funny -- Thanks :)

Bonos! LOL That she would even spew the word Catholic out of that forked tongue of hers ;)

Yadda Yadda -- Ha ha. Funny stuff. But I have a feeling that's the level of mind she has. Butthead. :)

Dylan -- LOL! "Curtain climbers" :)

I broke the cardinal Catholic rule. I am a 1 and done kinda girl. I'm kinda attached to my innards. I don't want to have to use binder clips to keep them up while I walk.

such as in Florida, trying to outlaw it for everybody

And then bitch about abortions.....yep that makes a whole lot of sense.....increased contraception = decreases abortion.....

If Florida could ban breathing it would.

People around here cling to the past like barnacles on a whales toukas!

It's none of the co-workers business. Even if she was the one that brought it up in conversation, why would she give a hoot what their opinions were anyway.

Erich, it make plenty of sense to me.

Thanks Heyford!

God gives us ghoices.... one of those being the different kinds of contraception. :)

I've always wondered if there was any correlation in the lyrics Ethel Merman used to sing and contraception....."I've got rhythm, I've got my guy".....see rhythm method didn't work then and doesn't work now......

And to add to the rhythm method... I have two kids, been pregnant twice. Both times I was using birth control.

So, after #2, my hubby went and did the permanent thing. God love him!

You have a good man there, E! Hang on to that one... :~) My mother was on birth control each and every time she conceived me and my other 3 siblings. She threatened my dad with "junk removal" if he didn't get a vasectomy. She claimed giving birth 4 times was enough pain and there was no way in hell she was going to go thru a tubal ligation.

It is an awful joke, but I do joke that if I got pregnant, my marriage would be in serious trouble! :)

All joking aside, pregnancy put me into serious post-partum.... and I mean serious. Two years after each child was a blur, a weight of depression where even going to the store for milk was so overwhelming and confusing. Almost to the day after two years of both pregnancies I woke up with the weight lifted. So yeah... I got a great guy who wasn't willing to put me through that again. Yay!!!

We cannot know the mind of God directly. We can however discern his purpose in our lives. That is the whole function of scripture-to lead us to a greater knowledge of God and of his will in our lives and in the lives of those around us. To deny that we can discern this is to deny that we can have any kind of relationship with God at all. The Judeo-Chritian view of God is one where He definitely is NOT cold and impersonal, but in fact is quite interested in formig relationships with humans, both as individuals and as societies. Certainly a Christian would view Jesus's teachings as perfectly understandable expressions of the will of God. Likewise, God's interactions with many of the prophets seem rather direct and to the point.

We can however really badly screw up our scriptural interpretation and blunt our ability to discern properly. This is why I shudder at the thought of being without the magisterium of the Church. As a Catholic, I trust in the knowledgable interpretation of 2000 years of trained scriptural scholars before I trust my own interpretive faculties, or those of Pastor Dan at the local strip mall fellowship church.

Why would God desire our worship if He did not desire also that we could come to know something of who and what it is that we are worshipping?

I stand by my #5 comment.

OK

As a Catholic, I trust in the knowledgable interpretation of 2000 years of trained scriptural scholars before I trust my own interpretive faculties, or those of Pastor Dan at the local strip mall fellowship church.

Arrogant, self righteous, condescending toward other churches, completely contrary to scripture and pretty much narcisstically elitist.

Are you under the impression that the Catholic Church is the only church with any knowledge of Christianity? Has the Vatican brainwashed you that badly?

You should really get some help for that................

In what way am I contrary to scripture? You mean the non-existant passages that say that you should not offend people by challenging them? Christianity is not about being polite; politeness is about sparing feelings, Christianity is about seeking the truth and following God.

I am not under the impression that the Catholic Church is the only one with any knowledge of Christianity. However, I can't help but notice the long history of the Catholic church and the volume of theological writings she has produced. Yes, I trust in this authority more than I trust in my own or any one person's interpretive efforts. I am aware of my own limitations in so far as I am human, and humans tend to interpret things so as to reflect their own desires rather than the truth. When I see other church's liberalizing their theologies so as to be more appealing to the "modern mind", I cannot interpret this as anything other a giving in to the human desire to have our desires and wants confirmed as the truth. When I see other churches appealing to emotional feeling rather than reason and glitzy rock n' roll set pieces rather than biblical exegesis, why should I trust that they have anything useful to say about my salvation? Feelings mislead. Emotions are easily fooled. Feeling your way about what Jesus would want and about what is right and wrong is not what Christian discipleship is about It is about being humble enough to submit your will to those who are in a position to teach you. This is what Jesus asked of his disciples. To allow yourself to interpret Gods will in your life and scripture based only on your own sense of right and wrong and your feelings is a mistake (see the case of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts). There was one Jesus and he taught one message. To assume that anything the Vatican teaches is "brainwashing" and that you are in a better position to discern the meaning of Scripture and the Will of God than anyone else (particularly those who have been at it longer than anyone else) is the arrogant, self righteous, and narcissitic side, and it is also the one that puts you in most danger. When a church tells you only what you want to hear and what feels good and appeals to your sense of comfort, then you have noone to pull you back once you start down the wrong path. You will convince yourself of anything.

Perhaps you should get some help with that. Good luck to you.

To allow yourself to interpret Gods will in your life and scripture based only on your own sense of right and wrong and your feelings is a mistake

What? So, you are actually saying that individuals cannot/should not discern what God's will in their own lives is? That makes no sense. That's actually pretty ridiculous on the face of it. It really is. Seriously. What if three people who had studied scripture....really studied it...told you that it was God's will that everyone who's first name starts with an M and ends with an E is to kayak off of Niagra Falls? I know that example is really extreme, but I think you know what I'm getting at here. I can see submitting to God's will, but NOT submitting to another human beings idea of what God's will for me is.

And just so you know, I am actually looking very hard at finally making a committment in my life and I am being pulled to Roman Catholicism for some strange reason. Who knows why, but I am.

Yadda Yadda,

I appreciate the fact that you're seriously looking at making a commitment in your life and I hope you do this very thing. I would like to share with you however, that a person should make a commitment to CHRIST as savior. Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Lutheran, whatever denomination, cannot save a person's soul, only Jesus Christ can do this, please remember that on your quest.

That makes no sense

Why does it not make sense? I'm not sure I understand your comparison, especially given that any interpretation of scripture must be in harmony with Tradition and the Magistrate.

I think that most people, including myself, are just not qualified to discern God's will. (To some degree, yes. An example might be being called to the priesthood. Only you can decide whether this is God's plan for you.) With regards to Catholic beliefs, I haven't dedicated my life to interpreting scripture, spiritual writings, theological studies, etc. Others have, and I humbly submit to their understanding and teachings over my own. Besides, I've yet to find a case where the teaching of the Church doesn't just make sense.

I don't see submitting to the teachings of the Vatican as submitting to another human beings idea of God's will. I see the pope as God's chosen leader and I see the pope's teachings as being divinely inspired. This is how I view priests, cardinals, bishops, and archbishops as well, although to a lesser degree.

In what way am I contrary to scripture?

In this way:

As a Catholic, I trust in the knowledgable interpretation of 2000 years of trained scriptural scholars before I trust my own interpretive faculties, or those of Pastor Dan at the local strip mall fellowship church.

Who the hell are you to say what any pastor does and does not know about Christianity? That little pastor in that little strip mall church probably knows more about serving Christ than you and the Vatican combined mister. Go read what the Wrod says about teachers, elders, deacons and the such. I can't seem to find any verse in there, or in the whole Bible for that matter that says anything about wither the Vatican or The Roman Catholic Church.

Christianity is not about being polite

Yeah, it is. Again, get out of the Vatican books and get into the meat that is the New Testament, the TEXTBOOK FOR CHRISTIANITY..............ever heard of the Fruit of the Spirit? Here:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23 So actually Mike my man, Christianity IS about being polite. And before we go any farther, I will on the record admit that this is one area where I am as or more guilty than any. I admit this and I struggle with it daily. I defend the gospel of Jesus Christ with a vengence sometimes that does not display a shining example of the fruit of the spirit. And the reason why I do is because I get sick and tired of people misquoting the scriptures, spreading false teaching and otherwise leading others astray from what this is really all about and that is salvation by grace through faith by the repentance of sin and the acceptance of Christ as one's savior and Lord.

However, I can't help but notice the long history of the Catholic church and the volume of theological writings she has produced.

You wanna go there huh? The long history of the catholic Church? Okayyyyy, then include the Knights Templar, all the scandal, all the secrecy, the murder, the sexual perversion and abuse that's been covered up and hidden throughout the ages, let's just lay it out here for all the world to see.

The knights Templar were under the direct control of the papacy from the early 1100's on and history bears out the fact that not only were the Knights Templar the most vicious and deadly organization of their day, it's been pretty well substantiated that they were extremely evil at the top of the heirachy as well. The history of Freemasonry can be traced back to the Knights Templar as can modern day banking. Yep, those boys really showed the fruit of the spirit in high fashion, that;'s why Philip IV of France burned Jaques De Molay at the stake in 1307, because he was such a good Catholic right?

Yes, I trust in this authority more than I trust in my own or any one person's interpretive efforts.

Another scriptural mistake, for the Bible tells us that while we are to listen to our teachers and spiritual leaders, we are also to question and hold them accountable for what comes out of their mouth to insure the truth of the Gospel is being spoken:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. 1 Timothy 1:3-7

I am aware of my own limitations in so far as I am human,

So is the Pope.

and humans tend to interpret things so as to reflect their own desires rather than the truth.

Does this statement also apply to the Pope or are you on record as stating the pope is not human by nature?

To assume that anything the Vatican teaches is "brainwashing" and that you are in a better position to discern the meaning of Scripture and the Will of God than anyone else (particularly those who have been at it longer than anyone else) is the arrogant, self righteous, and narcissitic side, and it is also the one that puts you in most danger.

Really? Show me in the Bible where it says to call any man on the face of the earth "HOLY FATHER". Show me in the Bible where it says to kneel before any man and kiss his ring. Show me in the Bible where it says that any Christian should not allow themselves to be taught, guided and mentored by the Holy Spirit but rather by the Vatican. Show me where the Bible states these things, give me the book, chapter and verse.

I got news for you pal, it's not me who is in danger here, or what did Peter say after he was jailed and ordered not to preach the name of Christ again? Here:

Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. "We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood." Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! Acts 5:27-29.

In other words, I will listen to a pastor all day long, but at the end of the day, I get on my knees and talk to the Lord and if I feel any inclination that I'm being led away from what I was told, I listen to that quiet still voice speaking to me which I know to be the voice of truth for it is the voice of the Lord through the Holy Spirit.

It's like the Vatican believing they have the power to make saints. They don't, we're ALL SAINTS once we become believers, again, read the Word of God. Another one is that Peter was the first pope thing. You believe it because the Vatican tells you it's true, when in reality, history as well as the Bible proves it's simply not possible due to timelines and other factors. This fallacy has long since been refuted and refuted by some pretty high ranking Catholics as well sooooooooo........................

Bottom line:

The Roman Catholic Church holds no more authority over Christiandom than any other body of believers on the face of the earth. They're all simply denominations of Christianity and denominations are MAN MADE.......................All of them

Or do you think Christ was simply speaking to be speaking when he said:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. John 14:26

I see no place in that Scripture that mentions the Vatican.

I would like to share with you however, that a person should make a commitment to CHRIST as savior. Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Lutheran, whatever denomination, cannot save a person's soul, only Jesus Christ can do this, please remember that on your quest.

You're patronizing here. You may not think you are, but you most definitely are. And specifically as to this:

a person should make a commitment to CHRIST as savior.

Forgive the expletive, but no @!$%#. I did that a long time ago. NOW I want to find a church where I can actually do some fellowship and learning. I've heard the baptist side of things and I don't care for it. I've heard the evangelical side of things and I really don't care for it.. I have felt drawn, for some insane reason, to the Catholic church and feel that it is the best place for me to do that. That is what I meant by making a commitment in my life.

Others have, and I humbly submit to their understanding and teachings over my own.

What if their teachings are wrong? That's my point. How, if you don't look inside yourself for God's voice, will you know that? If you just blindly go throughout your life and accept, as gospel, everything that comes out of the Vatican, how will you ever know whether or not what they say is wrong? You won't, if you go that route. Don't you ever question their teachings? Hasn't there been any, single thing that has come from the Vatican that you question? I can see looking to them for historical perspectives and possible interpretations, etc, but to say that what comes from the Pope is God's voice through him? I can't buy that.

Dylan,

The church has been infiltrated by evil people since Judas Iscariot. The scandals of the Catholic Church are well known and I will not debate you about them. I will only say that for every Catholic priest or bishop who betrays Christ there are thousands who hold faithful. I need only point out the scandals involving Tony Alamo, Jim Swaggart, Jim Baker, Peter Popoff, Ted Haggard, et al as proof that such things are not confined to the Catholic faith. Yes, the Catholic church is rife with fallable human beings and due to its long history, you can probably name more of them than you can equivalent cases from non-Catholic sources. Evil people will use the Church for their own purposes and when they get caught the whole Church takes a black eye. But the faith it preaches has held true in spite of the wicked Popes, the Templars, and all of the rest. 100 years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find a Christian Church that was OK with divorce, contraception, abortion, and the like. But now, you are hard pressed to find one that isnt OK with at least some of them, all in the name of "modernization" or "remaining relevant." What does your own concience tell you about what Jesus would think of abortion, contraception and divorce/remarriage? Scripture gives no direct reference to abortion or contraception that I know of. It talks ALOT about the sanctity of marriage and yet there seem to be multitudes of self-professed Christians who ignore what it says as they divorce and remarry their way through life. Oddly enough, there seem to be multitudes of Christian churches that don't seem to want topreach what Chirst taught about the sanctity of marriage as they allow even their pastors to divorce and remarry at will. The same goes for homosexuality, as we know find some Christian churches with openly practicing homosexuals in positions of leadership. Why would God inspire such direct commandments abouth these things in the authors of scripture and then speak to individual hearts in a contrary way in that "still small voice?"

Christ wasn't being polite when he knotted cords into a flail and drove the money changers from the Temple. He wasn't trying to make the Samaritan woman or the adulteress feel good about themselves when he looked them in the eye and told them that they were sinners, although he did assure them of His love. He wasn't polite to the Pharisees, whom he excoriated without fear. He certainly wasn't polite with His apostles when he scolded them in Mark 8: 14-21. Yes, we should spread love and goodwill, but not at the expense of diluting the Gospel. Too many modern churches would rather make people feel good about themselves and their time at the church than to burden them with the reality that they are not living up to the commandments of Christ. They instead, reinterpret the commandments of Christ.

You would be making a mistake to think that I too don't seek guidance in prayer or that I accept blindly the dictates of any priest or bishop. I am all too aware that there are some ordained leaders in the Church who are not serving Christ. But whereas you seemingly consult only the dictates of your own concience and the "still small voice" that speaks to you in prayer (which you assume to be the Holy Spirit), I have a vast library of teachers to consult stretching back over 2000 years when I want to make sense of things. What did the church Fathers say about particular subjects, people like Ambrose, Athenasius, Augustine, Clement, Cyril, Cyprian, etc. Men who lived before the time that the canon of scripture was even established, men who studied and debated the letters of Paul, the Gospels, and the Old Testament in their original languages. Men who were seperated from the first Generation of Apostles sometimes by less than 100 years. If you seek an "authentic" form of Christianity, one like that which the Apostles practiced, why would you not seek the wisdom of men who were not so far removed from it? I seriously doubt that the strip mall pastor with all of his good intentions and his ordination from God knows where can seriously compete with Ignatius of Antioch or Thomas Aquinas. When I seek to know God's will I do pray, but I also make reference to the wisdom of those who came before me. If God is eternal and has been seeking to commune with men since before the time of Christ, it is the height of arrogance to assume that He is speaking only to you and that all those who came before you were able to accomplish in terms of knowing Him was either misguided or inspired by Evil. After all how do you know that the "still small voice" in your heart is really God, and not your own will or that of Another? Against what do you judge it? If God is constant (which He is) and you are correctly discerning his will, your conclusion should come out to be similar to that of those who have also prayed about such things before with sincere hearts. Hence, while I pray, I also make reference to what God has provided me in the form of the deposit of faith-the teachings, traditions, and knowledge that He has revealed to those who came before me. Unless of course I am to assume that the Holy Spirit talks to me but not to them.

Dylan, you are terribly full of a LOT of misinformation about the Catholic church, most of which you have undoubtedly learned by the agency of others who hate it. If you want to more effectively make your case against the Catholic church you should bother to learn how it sees itself, not how others see it. It does no good to say a teaching of the Catholic church is false when what you are arguing against is not in fact a teaching of the Catholic church. While I could sit at my computer and argue points with you about the Catholic church, the role of the Pope, the Saints, etc. all day and night, I simply don't have the time-not to do so in a thoughtful way anyway. And I refuse to represent the Church with half thought out and reactionary responses to your accusations. Not that I expect you to take my advice, but if you care to know the truth about how the Catholic church sees things that you don't agree with you might want to make reference to the following books: 1) The Cathechism of the Catholic Church. 2) "Why Do Catholics Do That " by Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Niether will try to convert you or convince you that you suck if you are not a Catholic. Both will lay out the Church's rationale for the beliefs, practices and teachings that it espouses. The Catechism is online. The Orlin book can be had on Amazon. You may be surprised at the depth of thought and consideration that goes into Catholic theological thought, especially where other faiths are concerned. At the very least, you can be sure of what you are talking about when you seek to argue against it.

Two more books I'll recommend: "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis and "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoffer-niether one a Catholic. Above all else they warn against the certainty that you are saved. Merely accepting Christ does not discipleship make. Being a disciple means going against the world. Its hard, rough stuff and Christ promised that those who followed him would be opposed and mocked when they lived and proclaimed the Gospel in the same way that He was opposed and mocked. The parable of the seeds and the tares, the parable of the foolish virgins, and the parable of the servants who were partying and asleep when the master of the house came home tell of the fate of those who opt for "soft discipleship" and a feeling of security in their salvation. This is particularly true in our country where life is relatively easy and the distractions are great.

I cannot spare the time to continue our dialog any further. May God bless you and keep you safely on the path home.

Yadda,

I was in no way patronizing in any way. Your statement said absolutely nothing about you already having made a commitment to Christ, so how was I to actually know you're a believer? If I had known, I never would have made the statement but I didn't and therefore I neither knew whether you know about a commitment to Christ or not. That's not patronizing, it's simply offering information about the gospel of salvation to someone I did not know was already a believer. Please go re-read your statement and see that it's actually not clear about your commitment to Christ.

No Mike, I'm not misinformed, I study these things extensively thanks. And I've read the Screwtape Letters among other writings of CS Lewis but thanks for the recommendations.

I cannot spare the time to continue our dialog any further. May God bless you and keep you safely on the path home.

Okay, well best of luck to you and be blessed in all you do.

YaddaYadda,

I am perhaps a little strident in my defense of the Catholic faith. I am a convert who came to it by the grace of God and after a long period of intellectual searching and assent. I did fight hard. Perhaps I have a little too much of the convert's zeal. Please do look up the books I recommended to Dylan in #5.12. They present the core of Catholic belief and traditions in an easy, accesible way. All I can tell you is that I have never found a more satisfying spiritual banquet with trustworthy teachers and oceans of spiritual support than in the Catholic faith. Every single pastor in a Catholic church has a Masters degree in Theology and comes with the stamp of approval of a recognized authority-the local Bishop. Now there are great priests and there are quite frankly some terrible one's as well-they are only human. The thing is, if you don't like the manner of worship in a particular parish, or the personality of the priest or the congregation, you can find another Catholic church and be sure that they are on the same page every Sunday (all seven days of the week actually-you can go and worship God in a Catholic church every day of the week.) You don't have to be into Mary, or the rest of the Saints, or say novenas, or anything else that seems peculiarly "Catholic" if you don't want. Those are just tools and disciplines that the church offers to help focus and strengthen your faith. You can find quite modernistic parishes and you can find quite traditional ones. You can go to a "guitar mass" or you can go to a High Mass with organ and incense. But they are all the same Mass. At the heart of Catholic worship are the Scriptures and the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar (Communion). Behind it lies centuries of teaching, tradition, and prayer to help support you. Even the calender is divided to give your life a spiritaul rhythm. Have you ever experienced "spiritual dryness," times when you could not feel the presence of God in your life. I have, and so did most of the Saints. They were ordinary people who lived lives of extraordinary spiritual effort. Why not read from them how they overcame these feelings and remained hopeful against reason that God was still with them, even when everything seemed to them to be a pointless disaster?

In the end, all I can tell you is that I thank God constantly for his grace and love in bringing me to the Catholic church. I enourage you to consider it prayerfully as you discern your spiritual life. I have never found anything like it before in my life. I have never found anyting like it in the world. You don't have to go your salvation alone.

Pax et bonum!

Mike

Yadda,

I was in no way patronizing in any way. Your statement said absolutely nothing about you already having made a commitment to Christ, so how was I to actually know you're a believer?

Dylan, I should've been more clear. My response was for Mike, not you. And you're right, in defense of Mike, I shouldn't have assumed that what I said automatically meant I had made a commitment to Christ. So, I apologize to both of your for any misunderstanding.

What if their teachings are wrong? That's my point.

This is a valid question, but I think it's more likely that my interpretation is wrong than theirs. And I am not suggesting that you follow blindly and accept everything that comes from the Vatican on blind faith. The Church stands on 3 legs: Scripture, the Magistrate, and Tradition. Any teaching from the Pope that is not in agreement with Scripture and Tradition ought to be questioned. For example:

Consider the Society of St.Pius X..you may or may not have heard about this society as they have been in the news a lot in recent years. (I hesitate to even bring it up because the vast misinformation that has been in the media regarding the SSPX has given it a bad rap) In short, they disagree with a lot of what has come out of the Vatican since the second Vatican council. Their position is that many things that have come out of the Vatican in the last 50 years do not jive with the Church of the past 2000 years. Their mission is to continue the Church as it has been since the time of Jesus. In this case, I believe it is necessary to question the Vatican in order to live out the true Catholic faith. However, I am not basing this on what I think God's will is or my own personal interpretation of scripture. I am basing it on the teachings and Tradition of the Church for over 2000 years, as well as on the teaching of those who have lead the society and their much deeper understanding of the Faith.

I hope it is clear that I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the pope or Church teachings. In fact, I think it helps you learn and thus grow in your faith. In my own experience, I have yet to question something and find that the Church is wrong in its position. Once I understand the why, it always makes sense to me.

It sounds weird to say that the pope is the "voice of God", I just think that the pope is much closer to God than I am and in a better position to speak for the Church than I am. I do think that God does His works through his servant on earth (the pope) and that the pope is inspired in a Divine way.

Good luck in discovering your faith. At the risk of sounding cliche, I'm glad you've heard the calling to the Catholic church and hope you "head the call."

Please do look up the books I recommended to Dylan in #5.12. They present the core of Catholic belief and traditions in an easy, accesible way.

Mike, I will do that. Thanks for the recommendations. My sister-in-law has given me 2 to read that I really like. The first is "Pope John Paul II: In My Own Words". I really think he truly was a man of God. I have the utmost respect for him and always will. The 2nd is called "The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth". I'm reading it right now and I'm finding a lot of really good food for thought there.

I hope it is clear that I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the pope or Church teachings. In fact, I think it helps you learn and thus grow in your faith. In my own experience, I have yet to question something and find that the Church is wrong in its position. Once I understand the why, it always makes sense to me.

Ok, that I can understand. Thanks!

Yadda, Mike made a great recommendation in the book: THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS by C.S. Lewis. Pretty incredible read.

And hey, no apologies necessary, you're my friend Yadda, stuff happens. I honestly wasn't trying to be patronizing at all...................

Okay, gotta grab a bite to eat and get ready to watch "24", it's my weekly television vice, hehehehehe...................

Later........................

Jeeze...you men and your '24'... LOL!

Okay already, it's over, hehehehehe...............HEY it's a great show what can I say

Well said, Mike! You've done a great job in explaining the Catholic teaching on artificial birth control. This should be in every Church bulletin this week, as even Catholics don't seem to understand the Church's teachings on birth control. Like you said, if people don't accept the basic tenets of the Catholic faith, there is no reason that they would accept the Church's teachings on ABC. If you do accept these things as a Catholic does (should), there is no arguing against the belief that birth control is wrong.

Well fortunately for me, I don't believe I should have to try for a baby everytime I have sex.....because I'd be one unhappy mama if I had to put up with all that drama.....

Did I neglect in some way to mention that Catholic teaching does NOT demand that you have a baby every time you have sex? It simply demands that you not treat sex as a recreational game. There are methods of family planning that are acceptable under Catholic teaching. They simply demand more will power than most modern Americans are willing to muster.

Good luck kj.

The Church's position on homosexual sex is pretty well published.

pretty well published.

Indeed is is mike. My comment was an example of my world renowned sarcasm. I just wonder if the lack of birth control levels things out a tad with the Heteros in the eyes of the Church.

The correct answer to this seed is, "yes". Anyone can use birth control. And Catholics are not necessarily Christians and vice-versa.

The real question is, how does God feel about birth-control. I regret to say that I am not qualified to answer to God.

my world renowned sarcasm

Sorry, I didn't see the flyers at the Coffee shop.

And Catholics are not necessarily Christians and vice-versa.

Um...Along with the Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic church IS the foundational church of all Christianity. Anone denying this is denying history. The Catholic church and Catholics are most definitely Christian, despite what many non-denominationals would like to believe. The Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture, you know, the Bible! The Catholic church established most common expressions of Christian expression (The Nicene Creed, The Apostle's Creed). If you are a Western Christian of any kind (Mainline Protestant, non-denominational, Evengelical) or even a Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, or a Seventh Day Adventist, your spiritual heritage runs through Rome. You can deny it all you like, but a little research will prove to you that it is true. The Baptist churches were founded by Zwingli, the Anglican churches by Henry VIII, the Presbyterian churches by John Calvin. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and built up by his apostles.

The correct answer to this seed is, "yes". Anyone can use birth control...The real question is, how does God feel about birth-control.

Yes, but you canot use it AND truly remain in communion with your faith if you are a Catholic. Anyone believing in the authenticity of scripture should have plenty of reference points to discern the attitude of God/Jesus Christ towards casual sex and the contraception that promotes it. If you do not hold to the authenticity of the Christian scriptures then obviously you may disagree. I have seen enough of my own acquaintances and what happens to them emotionally when they abuse sex casually to know that its a bad idea. Contraception is dangerous in my view in so far as it promotes the casualization of sex.

I just wonder if the lack of birth control levels things out a tad with the Heteros in the eyes of the Church.

I should say probably not. The fact that homosexuals do not need contraception puts them squrely with those who do use it-the creative is seperated from the unitive and both aspects are reduced in homosexual and contracepted heterosexual sex. Again, my understanding of Catholic teaching on the matter.

jwc2blue wrote;

And Catholics are not necessarily Christians and vice-versa.

mike-330799 wrote;

Um...Along with the Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic church IS the foundational church of all Christianity. Anone denying this is denying history. The Catholic church and Catholics are most definitely Christian, despite what many non-denominationals would like to believe. The Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture, you know, the Bible!

Are you frickin kidding me?!? Seriously? Mike are you that defensive about your faith? I'm not all that familiar with the catholic religion since I was brought up and schooled in the teachings of the Lutheran Church (which is nothing but a pissed off catholic), but even I know that not all Catholics are christians, and not all christens are Catholics. Slow down dude and try to understand that not all people are Catholics and believe in the Catholic faith.

Contraception is dangerous in my view in so far as it promotes the casualization of sex.

Thank God that's just your view.

Lola,

I know that not all Christians are Catholic. That is self evident. If by "not all Catholics are Christian" you mean that not all nominal Catholics live up to even the most basic tenets of Christianity, then of course I agree with that. It is "cafeteria Catholics," and "cultural Catholics" who don't take the faith seriously that damage the Church and the faith tremendously by their persistent efforts to water it down. But yes, I get defensive about the faith when it is implied (as some fundamentalist Christians do) that the Catholic faith is not Christian in nature. JWC, if thats not what you were implying, then you have my apology. But a practicing Catholic person in communion with the Church IS a Christian in every sense of the word. It is my obligation as a member of the Church to defend the faith when I percieve that it is being maligned falsely. It is my duty as a member of the church to set the record straight and do what I can to prevent scandal (the leading of others into sin by the dissemination of false teachings or acts of objectively sinful nature).

Lola, I don't know what your personal feelings about faith and religion are. The tone of your post suggests that they are not that important to you. That's OK. its your life and not everyone has to be a Catholic, even in my worldview. If that is the case however, then you may have difficulty appreciating how very important it is to me. For me its real. For me its not simply a matter of opinion. Look inside your self and try to articulate your guiding philosophy-the set of ideas that guides your thinking, decision making, and values as you observe the world and try to interpret what you take in. Every one has such a philosophy and it colors how they view the world and interact with it. For many moderns, it is a personal synthesis of various ideas taken from materialism, humanism, socialism, and Judeo-Christianity, among other influences. When they percieve that someone is attacking the tenets of that belief system, they respond vigorously. You need only look at the tenor of most "discussions" on these vines to see that, particuarly where matters of politics and religion are at issue. The fury can be quite dramatic. Well, for me, that guiding set of ideas and principles is Roman Catholicism. The Catholic faith is what I judge right and wrong by, make my political decisions in light of, and try to conform my values and behaviors to. It is what comforted me against the loss of both of my parents, it is what keeps my marriage strong, and it is what gives me hope for my children's future, and the future of the world. It is the very core of who I am. It is also something that I willingly gave intellectual assent to after a long journey of reflection and disappointed searching. I haven't always been here, but once I got here, I discovered to my own satisfaction that there is nothing like it in the world! Again, I don't care whether you or anyone else is Catholic; its your journey through this world and your decisions to make. Good luck to you and may the God I believe in give you the grace to make it through. I'm not here to make converts. But I will proclaim without fear or compunction what I understand to be the truth of the matter, especially where the teachings and identity of the Catholic church are concerned. I will do this no less vigorously than someone like Rachel Maddow or Christopher Hitchens, or any other secular voice will defend their deeply held philosophies. And I will not refrain from articulating the truth of the world as my faith leads me to see it, no more than I would expect you or anyone else to refrain from articulating the truth as your guiding philosophy leads you to see it.

When I hear something like "...Catholics are not necessarily Christians..." (jwc's own words copied and pasted) I feel compelled to respond with vigor-Catholics are Christians, at least those who chose to actually pay attention to their faith are. Catholic-bashing is one of the few acceptable forms of open hate speech left in our society. It is the one thing the the most dyed-in-the-wool, irreligious, flaming homosexual and the most hardened fundamentalist Christian will readily agree upon. So, while I understand that not everyone is a Catholic, I am not "frikin kidding you," and I must respectfully decline to "slow down." I hope that you understand.

the Roman Catholic church IS the foundational church of all Christianity.

No, it is not......................

Christianity is the foundation for all Christian faiths.

The Catholic Church is the foundational church for Catholicism.

As a Catholic, that elitist view annoys me to no end.

Then learn your Church history Susi and Dylan. Before the schisms of the Orthodox churches Catholicism was the Christian church (excepting of course the Ethiopian church) in toto. After the schisms, Roman Catholicism represented the Western part of that original church.

No Mike, YOU learn Christian History. Before all of that were various body's of believers scattered all over the place immediately following the Ascension of Christ. Every letter Paul wrote in the New Testament was written to a certain body of believers and yes, the contingency at Rome was one of them as well. Christians were first called Christians in Antioch, not Rome Mike.

The Catholic Church is neither the foundation for all Christian Faiths nor is The Catholic the final authority over all of Christiandom.

Perhaps you need to spend a little bit more time studying the Christianity and a little less time studying the teachings of the Vatican.

Have a great day...............

As a Catholic, that elitist view annoys me to no end.

Susi my girl, when we disagree we disagree but when we agree we agree wholeheartedly!! Well said Susi and that is exactly what it is.

Voted Up..........

Dylan

I'm sorry Im just getting to your response. But, indeed it does seem that way doesn't it?

At least, I say, it's refreshing, when you disagree with me, you don't point a finger in my face like others do (Read: above) and when you agree you are a gentleman.

Thank you. :)

Yours as well, voted up.

Susi, If I'm going to point any fingers, the first one is going to be at me, period.

Thanks for your kind words, they're much appreciated.

Okay, I get up at 3:45AM and I just came back from a great Valentines dinner at the little church I go to so I need rest.

Have a great rest of the night and I'm sure we'll catch up tomorrow...................

Dylan

Point taken. Point finger out you have 3 pointing back at you.

You're welcome. And again, thank you for yours.

When you see this I hope you slept well and I am sure we'll run into each other around the Vine today

Every letter Paul wrote in the New Testament was written to a certain body of believers and yes, the contingency at Rome was one of them as well. Christians were first called Christians in Antioch, not Rome Mike.

Yes Dylan, but if you read those letters, St. Paul was always calling them back to belief in the authentic Gospel which he and the other Apostles had preached. It is notable that after his conversion experience, Paul returned to Jerusalem to seek the blessing of the Apostles in residence there for his missions, rather than simply beginning his ministry on his own initiative-I mean, he had a direct experience of the risen Christ too did he not? This confirms his own belief that there was in fact ONE correct version of the Gospel message of Jesus. Also confirming this was is insistence that the local churches he had founded sent money and other forms of material support BACK to the church at Jerusalem, which was considered the mother church of all, and rightly so. He was trying to stop divisions from arising in the body of Christ. He was not trying to affirm local or particular versions of Chriatianity. True enough, human nature always corrupts orthodoxy with novel ideas and interpretations. One needs only consider the growth of the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, the Sabellians, the Nestorians, et al. in the ages after the first apostolic generation. After Constantine ended the age of persecutions and adopted Chritianity as the state religion, he desired to know which version of Christianity was the correct one. He convened the Council of Nicea at which all the Bishops of the Empire gathered so that they could hash out what was Gospel and what was not. At this and subsequent councils, all of the major heresies were declared NOT to be authentically Christian. Remember, these were worldwide (at the time) gatherings of all Bishops; do you consider their prononcements to be "teachings of the Vatican?" Remember also, Christ himself promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church after his ascension. If you reject the notion that these councils and their affirmation of an orthodox form of Christianity were in fact guided under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then you perforce call into question the validity of Christ's promise. Again and again, the church has convened councils to deal with doctrinal novelties and never has a council disputed the findings of a previous council. Before the East-West schism there were seven councils, all affirming an Orthodox version of the faith. Until this time the Christian church truly was "one, holy, catholic and apostolic." As you rightly mention, Antioch was one major center of authority in that church, along with Rome, Alexandria (lost to the Arabs), Jerusalem, and Constantinople. The relationship between them (ie Papal supremacy based on Rome being the See of Peter) was one source of the schism. If you don't believe me, ask any knowlegable Eastern Orthodox or mainline Protestant Church historian. They will confirm the basic historical structure of the one catholic church which included the Roman Catholic patriarchy.

Thus the early history of the Christian religion has 1000 years of continuous agreement in an orthodox version of the faith. This doesn't mean that there are not local variations of liturgical practice. Indeed, even today within the Roman church there are several liturgical forms including Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, and soon Anglican forms. There is plenty of room for diversity in the style of worship within the Catholic church. But there is one, orthodox version of what is really Christian belief, and what is not. After the Schism, there were seperate Churches, but even then, the core of belief remained unified. To this day, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christian may legitimately recieve communion at each other's churches. Despite 1000 years of being seperate, there is still a general feeling of being one. Thus do I say, the Roman Catholic church, along with the Orthodox churches represent the foundational church of the Christian world (excepting small churches outside of the original Roman empire, such as the Ethiopian church, and possibly Christian traditions in India which traditionally were brought there by St. Thomas.) After the Schism, the Roman Catholic church became the foundational church for all subsequent western churches during the "reformation." If you are of Western European heritage, your ancestors were at some point Roman Catholic. That's just a historical fact. There was no other Christian Church in Western Europe until the 1500's.

So despite what glitzy shows on the "History" Channel may try to assert about "lost books of the Bible" and other types of Christianity, from the first generation of the apostles, there has always been a sense of orthodoxy and the need for communion among all Christian communities. After all, there was one Jesus Christ and the true version of Christianity consists in what He understood to be what he was telling people. I'd say that with 2000 years of continuous worship, prayer, study, and yes, debate, stretching back to Christ's own Apostles, the Roman Catholic Church, along with the Orthodox churches of the East have the best sense of what that message was. Certainly the idea that people should come to their own individual sense of what Christ's message means so as to reflect their own desires and values was NOT something that Paul or any of the other Apostles would have supported. There's just too much evidence against that in the Bible and in the early history of the church.

PS-I'm glad you and Susi could have such a deep moment of true interpersonal connection on this glorious feast of St. Valentine. Alas my own day was not so positive, starting out as it did with the discovery of a dead, stry dog in my yard.

Make a lot of friends, do ya?

I would say that christians are very confused people who follow a very confusing book, written by very confused people.

And you Brandon are..NOT confused? Wow...2000 years of confusion and you figured it all out!

Actually, no. I'm not confused. I prefer to live my life in reality. I don't need a collection of stolen fairy tales and myths to give me direction, fulfillment, purpose, clarity, spirituality, morality or anything else.

If you do, that's your prerogative. What a lot of religious people do, however, is conveniently forget, or try to cover up or make excuses for a tremendous amount of evil, death, murder, rape, incest, sodomy, dashing the heads of babies on rocks, capital punishment for trivial events, such as working on a particular day, or even being bald. Funny thing is that even Family Christian Stores are open on Sundays - I guess they're all going to hell too.

Religion creates inequality. Religion is in my opinion, the greatest evil the world has ever known.

Should christians use birth control? Probably not, because they're supposedly interfering with "god's" plan. No, what they're interfering with are the words that someone else wrote that had something to gain from it.

The catholics are especially bad at this, and most of south America is terribly over-populated because of it. More people equals more sheeple, equals more donations to the church.

If there is a "god", it certainly doesn't need money, and it certainly *shouldn't* need human beings to do its will. That is the most preposterous, hilarious, self-defeating argument I've ever heard.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

-Epicurus

That crazy Epicurus guy! I see what he's saying, but the bottom line is that God gave us free will. That's it. Otherwise, God would be up there pulling our strings like a puppetmaster. He gave us free will to choose Him or not. It's pretty simple, actually.

"Free will" is bull$hit. "Do as I say, or else" is not free will. It is fascism. The "god" of christianity is nothing more than a petty dictator handing out threats, murdering men, women and children, because "it" happened to create them in the wrong time or place.

There is no choice. "Free will" is an illusion that your sheep herders have pulled over your eyes for centuries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Sz7Fc_0Cs

So Brandon, why is it that you hate God so much and have turned into nothing more than an angry angry hater of all that is Christian? WHat has happened in your life that has caused you this much blind rage?

There is no choice. "Free will" is an illusion that your sheep herders have pulled over your eyes for centuries.

LOL!! Oh, so you don't believe that you have free will over your own life? I think you do, whether you believe that God gave it to you or you were just born with it because you're a human being. You just have to accept the consequences of your actions...just like you would if you decided, of your own free will, to rob a bank.

@Dylan923
I hate god and religion because they create inequality, conflict, hate, spread ignorance, fear, loathing and death under the guise of good. NOTHING on Earth has caused more problems than your "god" and religion - NOTHING.

The christian bible is FULL of contrivance, murder, and all manner of atrocities. God alone kills over a million people in the bible alone. The koran is as equally wicked.

I have never, could ever and will NEVER bow down or worship a petty tyrant, nor have the slightest amount of respect for ANYONE who tells me that I must believe or be forever punished. No one has the right to tell me that.

Christians are pure trash. Mindless sheep following a nonsensical book - written by other people that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to back it up. Christianity is an amalgamation of religions and cults that came before it.

There is no "god". Never was, never will be. And I am perfectly content to go through my life knowing that. If the rest of you want to believe there's an invisible man in the sky, so be it. But I'll fight tooth and nail to prevent people that believe as such from influencing public policy, or the way I live my life. I'll take your book and shove it down your throat before I give in one minute to religion or "god".

@YaddaYadda
You bet your ass I have free will over my life, and will not be punished for living my life the way I live it. I am a self-made professional, have a great job and am well respected in my city and industry for my abilities. I pay my taxes, even though your dirt bag christian churches don't. I take care of my family to the utmost of my abilities. And I do it ALL without the help of some invisible man in the sky. There will be no consequences for my actions. If there are, I hope I have the chance to spit in your "god's" face.

http://www.evilbible.com/
Happy reading. I especially thought the parts where innocent men, women and children are SLAUGHTERED is a great example of how "loving" your "god" is. Or how "god" commands people sell their children into slavery, or to beat them. Children's heads smashed against rocks. People murdered for working on Saturday. Ooh, I can feel the holy spirit moving through me, wait, that's a spear! Give me an effing break! God is "love" BULL$HIT. God is a murderous, evil son-of-a-bitch.

You bet your ass I have free will over my life, and will not be punished for living my life the way I live it. I am a self-made professional, have a great job and am well respected in my city and industry for my abilities.

Well, good for you, skippy!

But I'll fight tooth and nail to prevent people that believe as such from influencing public policy, or the way I live my life.

I think most folks believe in the separation of church and state, regardless of religion. I know I do.

There is no "god". Never was, never will be. And I am perfectly content to go through my life knowing that. If the rest of you want to believe there's an invisible man in the sky, so be it..... I'll take your book and shove it down your throat before I give in one minute to religion or "god".

Just because you hate God and religion, does that mean you also hate those who believe? I hope not, 'cause that's an awful lot of hate to carry around, dude.

@YaddaYadda

I am not an angry person toward my fellow man until someone attempts to force their religion on me. Which, in the course of my life, has been all too often.

I gotcha, Brandon. I don't blame ya...I don't like it much myself.

Thanks for understanding.

I am not an angry person toward my fellow man until someone attempts to force their religion on me.

Yeah............you are Brandon and you prove it with this statement:

Christians are pure trash.

You hate all of Christianity because of the actions of a few and in my opinion this is not only wrong but extremely judgmental as well, but that's on you, you're certainly entitled to feel how you wish.

Personally, I've never shoved my faith down anyone's throat, the Bible is extremely clear on this NOT BEING the way to do things.

Mindless sheep following a nonsensical book - written by other people that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to back it up. Christianity is an amalgamation of religions and cults that came before it.

Actually Brandon, history has pretty much validated Jesus Christ a historical figure who walked this earth. And Christianity is not an amalgamation at all, only if you choose not to understand it by faith, however, you believe what you wish and I will do the same, I"m not one to push anything on anyone. As I said, the Bible is very clear about this and arguing about it does absolutely nothing to further the gospel message.

There will be no consequences for my actions. If there are, I hope I have the chance to spit in your "god's" face.

Well Brandon, sadly enough you're going to have that opportunity someday. I only wish that when that opportunity comes you didn't feel the way you do.

With all due respect Brandon, you have an incredible amount of rage and anger inside you. I assume alot of it comes from some traumatic experience involving religion of some sort, if I'm wrong, please accept my apologies. But wow dude...........

ALl I wish to say to you at this point Brandon is that I respect your feelings and opinions even though I strongly disagree with the opinions. You have every right to voice those opinions in the same manner that I have every right to disagree with them. And I want you to know that regardless of how you feel about God, religion and Christians, I hold no animosity toward you at all. I've been down some very very dark roads in my life Brandon so I'm nobody to judge anyone else. And I want to extend an invitation to you to always feel free to email or contact me if you find the desire to discuss any of this.

Have a great rest of the night, I gotta get some rest I get up extremely early for work.

TAKE CARE YADDA, I'll catch up with you tomorrow......................

Dude, you need to do some research. Christianity is NOTHING BUT an amalgamation of countless religions and cults that came before it. There are many, many figures that are NEARLY IDENTICAL to your "Jesus". Horus, an Egyptian god, is probably the absolute closest.

History would also have us believe that Christopher Columbus was a jolly fellow, who met the Indians and discovered America and was a really great all-around guy. What is conveniently left out of history texts is how he and his shipmates would laugh at the children of the native tribes as their dogs were loosed upon them and killed for sport.

Your bible does the same thing. It has been edited and edited and edited again, to suit the needs of those in power at the time. It's about as legitimate as a roll of toilet paper. Speaking of which, I just found a new use for that old copy I have in a drawer somewhere.

You can keep living your life in fear of the invisible man in the sky who will punish you forever for not believing in him. I'll base my life in reality. You can pray for what you want in one hand and $hit in the other and see which one fills up first.

There is too much evidence for the NON-EXISTENCE of a "god" than for me to ever, for one split-second of my life on this planet to believe so. What a complete WASTE of someone's life - TO LIVE IN FEAR. A mental slave to a piece of nonsensical fiction. You and all other religious people are slaves and you don't even realize it. I don't envy your existence at all.

Brandon, I'm not going to argue about any of this with you. And I've done plenty of research dude, that's why I believe like I do. Once a person experiences the power of God and the Holy Spirit in their lives it changes everything.

If you want to believe this amalgamation thing then by all means believe what you will. But as I'm not trying to convert you nor am I trying to shove my faith down your throat, please don't try to convince me my faith is in vain, I know otherwise.

Have a great day today

christianity and islam try to shove themselves down my throat with their very existence.

The only power I've ever experienced from your "god" is someone trying to make my wallet lighter and make my kids feel guilty because they didn't bring cash that day.

so far as I can tell, Brandon, you came to this website and started off with an off-handed attack on Christians:

I would say that christians are very confused people who follow a very confusing book, written by very confused people.

so your statement that

I am not an angry person toward my fellow man until someone attempts to force their religion on me.

doesn't really hold water. You found this site, this article, and attacked...it did not find you. You are the aggressor. Nobody, no religion, forced you to come here and comment. It is not religion but hatred, like yours, that creates conflict and hate.

christianity and islam try to shove themselves down my throat with their very existence.

Brandon, existence isn't shoving anything down your throat, that's your hate rearing its angry head.

If you're specifically speaking about thbose who go door to door harassing those who wish to be left alone, then I'll agree with you but to make such a ahteful blanket statement is nothing more than misdirected hate.

Religion isn't going to go away Brandon, something you're simply going to have to deal with. Or not................whichever, it's your issue.

Best regards.

The existence of religion - especially the doctrines of christianity and islam, create inequality. "Do it our way, or else you'll forever burn in hell" is a very aggressive statement to make. That isn't forcing a system of beliefs on someone? I don't feel I'm the aggressor here. I'm not the one threatening anyone with eternal damnation.

Religion creates conflict. Even the many sects of christianity can't agree with each other, and you're going to hell if you're "not the right kind of christian". At least the christians aren't suicide bombing each other, but that's about all I'll give them.

In closing, I guess my bottom line is that there is a lot of evil in the world that is directly caused by religion, and that fact seems to be ignored by religious people.

I'm not the one threatening anyone with eternal damnation.

Nobody is threatening you, just stating the principles of their religion. I can't make you burn in hell, nor can anyone else. It sounds to me that you take this "threat" seriously enough to let it affect you (as you should).

You speak as if you want nothing to do with religion and you are sick of religion infringing on you, yet you come the the Religion section of Newsvine and instigate. It seems to me that you aren't looking to avoid religion at all. You come here looking for conflict and heated discussion...that's fine. I do too, I enjoy the debate. But don't come here and start something and then cry of "attempts to force their religion on me."

How are the principles of their religions not threatening me? True, no one on this thread has forced anything on me, and I don't feel I've cried foul of that. I'm speaking on generalist terms in regards to the religions themselves.

I do take the threat of religion very seriously, as everyone should. Religion, unfortunately, has very serious affects on our world. Very, very few of which are good. Every day there is a news story of a problem caused by religion. Why do so few people not see a problem with that? I simply cannot comprehend how someone can look on the problems caused by religion, and say to themselves, "my religion is helping the world", when in fact chances are their religion is hurting someone or some thing.

Nobody can threaten you with eternal damnation any more than they can threaten you with eternal life. Nobody has that power over you. Are you saying that you are threatened by religion, an inanimate thing, that you (i'm guessing) don't even believe in? Why do you seek out ways to attack religion?

Every day there is a news story of a problem caused by religion. Why do so few people not see a problem with that?

Every day there is a news story about car crashes, but I'm not threatened by cars. Religion is a concept. It can do no harm in and of itself. It is the people who do harm, and when people claim to be acting in the name of a religion when they do harm, they are usually going AGAINST that religion. Example: pedophile priests. They are acting AGAINST the very religion they claim to represent. This is not the fault of the religion, but of the human.

Ah, but it's the religion that instigates the behavior in the first place. I don't agree with your whatever, so I'm going to show you, etc.

In the case of pedophile priests, I think it's the religion's fault. Abstinence is simply not human nature. If it were, there would be a lot less people. Unfortunately, these poor bastards have no other outlet, so they take it out on whomever.

If that goes against the religion, shouldn't "god" be doing something about it?

If that goes against the religion, shouldn't "god" be doing something about it?

First, no matter how you spin it, the term GOD is a proper noun and should be capitalized, if not out of respect, then simply out of a desire to use proper grammer.

But none the less, how is it that you're so confident that someone you claim to not even believe in is NOT in fact doing something about it? You're not sure Brandon, you simply don't know what God does and does not do because you don't believe in God.

God owes you no explanations Brandon, in fact God owes you nothing. You, on the other hand, owe your very existence to God.

Yes, Catholics are called to overcome our temporal urges, what you call human nature. All Catholics, not just priests. However, priests voluntarily take a vow of chastity, it is not forced upon them by this abstract thing called religion. If they are weak and cannot live up to this vow, it is not the fault of the religion they profess, but the fault of their own weakness. You are transferring the blame from the "active" participant, the priest, to the "passive" thing called religion.

I don't think your argument is a very strong one.

You didn't answer my question: Why doesn't "god" do anything to prevent the innocent from being harmed? It would seem that it is the will of "god" for the person to be harmed. hence, "god" is responsible for all evil.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

The age old question: Why doesn't "god" do anything? You know the answer as well as I do: He gave us free will to act on our own volition. We are not merely His puppets. Evil comes from the lack of God, not from God.

Yes, God is willing and able to prevent evil, but it is evident that this is not His intention. Why do you think that God's role is to create people and then make sure they skate through life without any harm or struggle? Perhaps you've heard the phrase "the reward of eternal life." A reward is something that is earned, not given without merit.

I think that's a hard argument to make to someone who has been abused by one of these priests. I also think your reasoning is quite backward. You're saying that evil comes from the lack of "god"? How so? Evil isn't the invention of "god"? I beg to differ. Your "god" supposedly made everything, and that includes evil, the intention to do evil and the needless suffering of people because of it.

So basically what you're saying is we have to endure the will of "god" to be rewarded. Sorry, I can't carry on this conversation anymore. There's just no logical reasoning with someone of faith.

Take care, signing off.

I think that's a hard argument to make to someone who has been abused by one of these priests.

Appealing to sympathy isn't a valid argument. I'm sorry, but life isn't all peaches and cream.

Your "god" supposedly made everything, and that includes evil, the intention to do evil and the needless suffering of people because of it.

God made all things good. Just as darkness is the absence of light and black is the absence of color, evil is the absence of God...evil is not the invention of God, it's the result of turning your back to God.

So basically what you're saying is we have to endure the will of "god" to be rewarded.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. But it's not as if we have a choice...we will endure it either way.

Sorry, I can't carry on this conversation anymore. There's just no logical reasoning with someone of faith.

Again, you came here and and attacked people of faith in your very first post. If you're not interested in talking with someone of faith, don't come trolling in the religion section of newsvine.

There is too much evidence for the NON-EXISTENCE of a "god" than for me to ever, for one split-second of my life on this planet to believe so. What a complete WASTE of someone's life - TO LIVE IN FEAR. A mental slave to a piece of nonsensical fiction. You and all other religious people are slaves and you don't even realize it. I don't envy your existence at all.

Human history is nothing if not an unbroken search for the meaning of existence. In all of that time, it strikes me as highly unlikely that it is only since the advent of the modern scientific method and its accompanying technology, that we've all been getting it wrong. It is as much an act of philosophy and faith to declare that nothing exists that cannot be proven by empirical observation or logical syllogism (ie materialism), as it is is to look at the world around you and see evidence of God. You are as much a slave to "Scientism" as any of us are to religious faith. We believe in what our scriptures and our faith tradition tell us, usually through the interpretive faculties of a pastor whom we trust is well trained and well versed in scriptural exegesis. Your "scripture" would seem to consist of the collected body of scientific literature. Your "faith traditions" are the prevailing theories that govern scientific thinking (ie the paradigms of Kuhn), and your "pastors" are the scientists and science journalists who tell you what it all means. The only "reality" in science is the data Brandon; what was observed. That's the only concrete knowledge available. Just a pile of numbers that were collected (we hope) in a way that makes them accurate in terms of what we are trying to figure out. All else is interpretation. What you read in scientific literature is merely the interpretation of some scientist as to what their data really means. There is just as much argument and ill will between scientists as there are between people of faith, about the nitpicky details of the interpretations. What was held as "reality" by scientists 200 years ago is now largely cast aside. There is no real reason to believe that what we now so smugly hold to be "reality" will not also be largely discarded in 200 years. And if you don't think that the "scriptures" of science get edited and re-edited and re-re-re-interpreted to suit the needs of those in authority, then you don't understand how science works. I used to work in a lab. I have taken part in the whole process from grant-writing to publication,and I can tell you, things are ALWAYS interpreted so as to fit the prevailing interests of the scientists doing the work. Scientists cannot seperate their own psychologies from their interpretive faculties any more than religious believers. Science is just another system of human interpretation and it is just as susceptible to human weakness. You trust in what the scientists say because they are the "experts" and they approach life from the same philosophical viewpoint as you (or so you would like to believe.) In other words, science merely reaffirms your own trust in what you already have accepted philosophically (materialism) and you then point to the stature of your priests (the scientists) as evidence that their pronouncements must be correct. After all, these are learned men of pure intention-right? Their accolytes (the science journalists) transmit their wisdom perfectly and faithfully, right? Rubbish Brandon. Science is a human activity done by fallible human beings, and if you put your trust in it, than you are no better than we of faith. We rely on the fallible human beings of the church to help us understand reality. You merely rely on a different set of fallible human beings with a different message to deliver.

Every day there is a news story of a problem caused by religion. Why do so few people not see a problem with that? I simply cannot comprehend how someone can look on the problems caused by religion, and say to themselves, "my religion is helping the world", when in fact chances are their religion is hurting someone or some thing.

Brandon, how do you explain the objective evil, the suffering and brutality caused by people of no religious faith? How do you explain the pedophilia of someone who is not a priest? The Catholic priesthood is full of committed, chaste men who are NOT pedophiles. The pedophiles are that way BEFORE they become priests. It is human nature itself that causes what we call "evil." The drive towards aggression and violence are not initiated by religious faith. Religious faith is used by aggressive, violent people to justify what they already want to do. One can substitute patriotism, political ideology, social philosophy, or any other systematic belief set as easily as religion. My religion IS helping the world. It is helping when it impels me to donate my money for the relief of suffering in Haiti, or donate my time at the soup kitchen, or just taking the time to listen to another person. It helps the world by setting a standard for morally correct behaviour that focuses on the dignity of the individual. Do I or any other person of faith meet that standard 100% all of the time? No, but that is our failing, not the faith's. What does science tell you about human dignity? Does it tell you that every human being has rights that should be respected? Or does it tell you that the carriage capacity of the physical world is only so much and that, to keep life comfortable, we need to enact laws discouraging human reproduction as if we were nothing more than the animal stock from which we evolved? The President's chief science advisor, Dr. John Holdren seemed to hold to the latter philosophy. I don't see much about human dignity there, just an appraisal of numbers. Yes, evil is committed by people who believe that their actions are justified by God. But evil is everywhere and whethr you commit evil because you believe that your targets are infidels or apostates to the faith. or because you believe that they represent "surplus" huaman population, the result is the same.

My religion has produced people who are willing to suffer and even die for the sake of helping others-Fr. Damien of Molokai who fed and clothed the lepers in Hawaii untill he caught the disease himself, Mother Theresa of Calcutta who picked up the dying and abandoned from the gutter and gave them some last hours of comfort and companionship, Father Maximillian Kolbe who volunteered to die by starvation in the place of another prisoner at Auschwitz (a man who did survive until liberated). These are just three of millions who have toiled, suffered, and even died for the sake of their religious philosophy, because their faith told them that their own lives and comforts were not worth the sufferings of others. What has your philosophy produced to match them? Evil is caused, not by insane religious belief. Eviol is caused by the willful refusal to see the dignity in others. When you view other human beings as less than you, all manner of rationalization becomes possible. Evil IS turning your back on the God we believe in, because our faith tells us that He does view every human being as unique and precious, even if we don't. Our faith tells us that we are loved and that our existence is justified, but not to the exclusion of others. Even if we fail to overcome our own weakness in living up to that, it does not make it any less so. And our faith does tell us to not ever give up in trying in th emidst of those failures.

What does your faith in logic and scientific reason tell you about the dignity of the individual huamn being? Why should my discrete collection and pattern of neuronal synapses manifested as something I call "personality" or "self" matter any more than any other? Why should yours? Why should anyone else care whetehr or not you or I are "happy." "Happy" just means that our neuronal computers are not experiencing any negative input in tems of stress hormones or pain signals. If my overall genetic fitness is good, is that not all that matters in terms of my biological function? If my genetic fitness is poor, is it not my duty to die to remove myself from the gene pool so that future generations will not be burdened by my genes? Really, from a reductionist or materialist perspective, that's all that really counts. We are as individuals, no more than the functional sum of our component parts. My mind exists to coordinate my body. My body exists to support my genitalia. My genitalia exist to serve the needs of my genome. Good, evil, suffering, happiness they are just all terms used to describe the optimality of function of the machine that is me and of its integration with the population of similar machines. There is no empirical evidence otherwise. No evidence for God, or "human dignity" or "morality" or any of that. From a scientific, "evidence-based" perspective, who cares about human suffering? If you do, then you are not being logical. The logical perspective demands that you survive using whatever means necessary and ensure the passing on of your genes. That is what your machine is programmed to do. What you call "evil" are simply those machines whose programming has fewer output limitations. Really, they represent the biological optimum do they not?

Brandon, your philosophy of "logic" and scientism (absolute rejection of non-empirical forms of knowledge), when pursued to its utmost ends, scares the Hell out of me.

And people that believe there is an invisible man in the sky, who can't even write its own book, that creates things and kills them at will for its own pleasure, who sits idly by while other things suffer because it refuses to do anything, who needs constant attention and praise, who goes to infinite lengths to conceal itself and offers no proof of its existence, who always needs "just a little more" money, and demands that you think its way or else, scare the eff out of me.

You have not accurately described what I believe, nor indeed what any person of faith I have ever met believes. You do not, by your comments indicate that you really understand the nature of religious faith, particularly the Judeo Christian varieties. I'm sorry, but your argument lacks any sense of "logic" at all. You simply rail again and again against what you percieive to be inconsistencies and shortcomings of the Christian belief system. You present no rational argument at all, merely mockery and derision. You certainly seem to have a very serious axe to grind with God and those with the temerity to believe in Him.

You are excluding the vast majority of the human race from your company because you say that their religious faith scares you.

You are excluding the vast majority of the human race from your company because you say that their religious faith scares you.

Of course religious faith scares him, if he acknowledged it was true he would have to change, he like the way he is.

Sorry, I don't believe in fairy tales that I have to dumb myself down to level of a kindergartner to rationalize.

What's more logical? That there is no "god" because of the lack of evidence? or that there is an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful invisible entity that controls everything? The simplest solution is the most logical - that there is no "god".

I think the real problem is that human beings are aware of their own mortality, and we feel that somehow we're more special than the other forms of life on this planet. Therefore, we simply "must" believe that there is something after we die, yet there is no empirical evidence to support it.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of belief systems since the first humans came down from the trees. Christianity, islam, and all of the other current belief systems will eventually fade away, like so many before them.

Funny that you used the word "temerity", which can also mean "foolhardy". I'm much happier without people such as yourself, who so blindly follow a fairy tale. Willful ignorance and religious fundamentalism are the reason the world is in such a decrepit state, and people continue to kill other people because their imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.

Any way - back to the original topic - the article. Should christians use birth control? I wish they would. There are far too many of them already.

That there is no "god" because of the lack of evidence?

If you where to say "That there is no "god" because of the lack of evidence that I will except? Then I would say you are honest

Any way - back to the original topic - the article. Should christians use birth control?

The original topic was "Can Christians use birth control?" Sorry.

I'm much happier without people such as yourself, who so blindly follow a fairy tale.

So you have expunged any and all persons of any sort of religious faith from your life. I suppose that's one way to be happy. Associate only with people who share your views. Define people like me as mental defectives and it even makes sense in a tragic sort of way.

I think the real problem is that human beings are aware of their own mortality, and we feel that somehow we're more special than the other forms of life on this planet.

But, empirically, we are more special than other forms of life on this planet. We have the Internet. We have the ability to recognize that our own existence as transient and meaningful in a context beyond that of our own experience or the dynamics of our local, pack, nest, school or whatever. Have you rigorous, empirical evidence that any other species has the kind of transcendant self awareness as humans possess? Can you demonstrate that other forms of life consider themselves in the same way as you did when you discussed the fact that history has had a long train of religions and that mine would eventually die out too? Do whales show knowledge of themselves as being part of a pod that was once non-existent and will one day be non-existent again? Is there evidence of meta-awareness in animals? Even if they did, how would we know? Or are there limits to what an empirical approach can discover.

Willful ignorance and religious fundamentalism are the reason the world is in such a decrepit state, and people continue to kill other people because their imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.

So how do you account for the greed, violence, and brutality of non-religious people?

The simplest solution is the most logical.

Not always. If you understood anything about systems biology, you would not make that statement. Complexity is more often the norm than the exception. It is only with the advent of computers that we have been able to grasp even a little of it. Besides, William of Occam was a Franciscan friar in medieval England, hardly the kind of source a well heeled atheist such as yourself should be drawing on:

Ernst Mach advocated a version of Occam's razor which he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." Taken to its logical conclusion, this philosophy becomes positivism; the belief that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable and something that doesn't exist at all. Mach influenced Einstein when he argued that space and time are not absolute but he also applied positivism to molecules. Mach and his followers claimed that molecules were metaphysical because they were too small to detect directly. This was despite the success the molecular theory had in explaining chemical reactions and thermodynamics. It is ironic that while applying the principle of economy to throw out the concept of the ether and an absolute rest frame, Einstein published almost simultaneously a paper on brownian motion which confirmed the reality of molecules and thus dealt a blow against the use of positivism. The moral of this story is that Occam's razor should not be wielded blindly. As Einstein put it in his Autobiographical notes:

"This is an interesting example of the fact that even scholars of audacious spirit and fine instinct can be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices."

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

You are as much a slave to your philosophy as I am to mine Brandon. Do you give any credence to string theory because it carries the imprimatur of "science?" Because you know, there's no empirical evidence for that either.

@mike

I think there are other forms of life on Earth that are even *more* special than humans. You mentioned whales - a demonstratively intelligent species. They have their own language, they can learn to use apparatus to (sadly) entertain us at Sea World. They obviously have feelings and emotions. They maintain a balance with the environment around them - something we could certainly take some lessons on.

Are they aware of the world beyond their pod? I believe so. Will we ever be able to communicate with their species? Who knows. I think it would be best for them not to communicate with us. How would we answer their questions like "why do you continue to hunt us for unnecessary food?" and "why do you kill us for sport?"

I think string theory is quite interesting. I don't think it's complete nonsense. I believe that with enough time and research, the fabric of space time will be revealed. Maybe we'll find your "god" then. But until I see some proof, it's still just a fairy tale to me, and a growing number of others that have grown tired of the oppression of religion.

I can't speak to the greed, violence and brutality of non-religious people. What I will say is that I don't believe religion, especially christianity, islam or judaism are a good moral compass. There's enough greed, violence and brutality in those religions to destroy the world 10x over. Any "god" who orders babies heads to be smashed on rocks is no father, good, loving, caring or anything else except a cold-blooded murderer. So I'd say anyone following that as an example of what's morally acceptable is seriously effed in the head.

Funny how all of the episodes of brutality, violence, prostitution, murder, infanticide, genocide - pure evil - get left out of sermons. And "god" is doing almost all of the killing. I'd rather be a slave to technology and reality than to a murderous, narcissistic, fascist, petty tyrant with an axe to grind against humanity for using the "free will" "it" gave us to turn away from such oppression.

I will not be a slave to religion.

OK.

Peace to you Brandon. May your ∆F always be positive (but not so's you'd catch fire.)

Here's a little gift. Its a story by Isaac Asimov.

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Interesting read. I have no doubt that the Universe runs in cycles such as described by Asimov. What I doubt most sincerely, is that the force that created the Universe revealed itself to a Palestinian farmer in the middle of the desert and then killed its own creation in a hideous fashion to teach us a lesson.

Peace. Out.

This is a stupid seed.

Then Leave...................

...And. That's how it's done!

Oh, clap clap clap!

:)

It's a stupid question----can Christians use birth control???????

Oh...and Susi has the clap!!

Stupid Questions are ones that don't get asked...........................