So this is the episode where we talk about sex (and true to form, the DXPs leave no stone unturned. Perhaps we should call ourselves the DXXXPs?). We tackle extramarital relations, masturbation, contraception, Onanism, homosexuality, and whether sex-for-pleasure is actually more human than animalistic (with Christian giving a rousing defense of his views and Jason giving a half-hearted one of his). This leads into a debate about whether a family should adjust the amount of children they have to their desired lifestyle, or the other way around. We take a caller’s question about fraternities, which springboards into a discussion about the racism and misogyny not only of SAE but of the Greek system as a whole. Christian’s bieber shows him desiring to go postal on the postal service, while Jason is biebered by the diminishment of his superiority complex.
Also, while Jason may not be up to date with the lingo used by the street-youths these days, he has a sneaking suspicion that Christian’s question about what he puts in his coffee was pretty gross.
Links From This Episode:
Podcast #39: Leave the Driving to Us
Podcast #396: Roe V. Wade and Other Stuff
Podcast #307: Quarantine and Racist Statues
Podcast #221: Faustian Bargains and Eternal FOMO
What a fun episode! Really entertaining. I started listening on the way to class, and then ended up skipped my class altogether to finish the podcast. Better class than work I guess 🙂
The Roman Catholic Church really isn’t doing it’s members any favors, especially their current pope:
source
I found it interesting that the Roman Catholic Church can’t change it’s mind regarding contraception. That is, unless it changes it’s mind about being able to change it’s mind on the issue?
I’ll never get you sola ecclesia folks, but hey, such all we Christians were before likes to Luther and Calvin (and protos such as Hus and Wycliffe).
I listened in where I could in my free time this morning, thanks guys for sharing about your personal experiences with the issue. I hope it helps those confused over this matter.
Grace and peace.
AB – For firebrand Catholics like Rick Santorm, the current Pope probably does make it “very difficult to listen to” at times but balanced against everything else Francis has done since becoming Pope I would say that he has done a great job representing Catholicism to the rest of the world.
Greg, and he seems to be channeling George Washington who was in favor of term limits. He misses having Pizza:
He said: ‘The only thing I would like is to go out one day, without being recognised, and go to a pizzeria for a pizza.:
So we may see grey smoke from that little stack in the next year or two, can’t wait until my news radio in the morning is all abuzz with who the next pope will be. Whoever that is will have large shoes to fill, no doubt.
Christian,
A couple of initial thoughts…
1. You keep on commenting that you “respect people more” when they admit when something doesn’t make sense. In a way, you are beibered by the arrogance of always having an answer. I would like to turn the tables for a second. Couldn’t it also be considered arrogant to insist that someone be agnostic on an issue just because it doesn’t seem logical to you? Aren’t you in essence saying “this doesn’t seem true to me, and if you disagree, well, you must just be a brainwashed-know-it-all”. Rather than arrogantly having an answer, you are arrogantly insisting that one doesn’t exist. What say you?
2. I was sort of befuddled by the two of you saying that chastity outside of marriage doesn’t fit with our intuitive moral compass. It never seemed difficult for me to grasp as a child. It never really became unclear as a teenager, it only became less appealing. Christian asked “whats the harm with two consenting adults having sex if it makes all parties involved happy”? Jason never really responded, but I would (arrogantly) love to do so. One of the more obvious consequences is children growing up without a father. A baby antelope in Africa is ready to run with the herd and evade predators within 3 to 4 minutes…. human babies take a little longer! 18 years and we still aren’t quite ready to evade the “lions” in life! Human beings need family. A mother to nurture, and a father to provide and protect. Men growing up without a father in their life never learn to “provide and protect”. They just learn that its better to pay child support on time. Better for Dads to be around on weekends and attend their sports game. This problem ( a skewed view of family) is passed down continuously generation after generation until someone can break the cycle.
If we aren’t having sex in marriage, we are having sex with someone that we have not promised to be with until “death do us part”. In essence, we are having sex without any arrangement or agreement to care for the children our sex may produce! Sure, some guy might “do the right thing” and marry a pregnant woman after the fact, but now his commitment to that woman is only superficial. It arises out of a sense of duty or obligation. What are the chances that such a commitment will survive? Very slim. The Roman Catholic sexual ethic is based upon protecting and reinforcing a strong family dynamic. An ethic that is backed up by numerous studies.See for example this study published by the Journal of Family Pyschology.
http://www.economist.com/node/17956905
3. Lastly, I wanted to point out that the issue of natural family planning is really just a red hearing. The Church has not dogmatically defined that NFP is acceptable. In fact, it was only recommended within the Church (relatively) recently. If you are convinced that there is no difference between NFP and contraception….. that has no impact on the claim that contraception is a moral evil. One that divorces our view of sex from the family and has had horrible consequences on society as a whole.
Now I am late for my second class…. awesome.
Kenneth,
Do be sure to get off to class, you need not answer any questions from me, especially not in any timely fashion. I plan to be alive for a least a couple more years, deo volente..
What do you think of the fact that for all intents and purposes, the matter of contraception is raised to the level of the two natures of Jesus, by that, I mean it is a matter that the Roman Catholic Church may not change her position on? I know Catholics love the numbers game, so to turn it a little on you for a change, what do you think that every Christian Communion has changed their view on contraception with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church? Sure, build arguments and send links as to why you think your church is right and every other communion is wrong. Just be aware that for those of us who get attacked because we are in a small communion, it’s ironic that yours, although the biggest, is clearly the odd man out in Christiandom with regard to this issue. Food for thought, is all.
Grace and peace.
Ab – That’s probably less about health and term limits and more about lunatic fringe types like Rick Santorum.
Andrew,
Skipped second class. It’s a mickey mouse course anyways 🙂
I’m really not all that concerned with what the Protestant world thinks today. Here today, gone tomorrow. Interesting quote of the day
“We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA. … This is exactly what we are for. We are machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.”
— Richard Dawkins
Seems like even the atheist worldview knows what the “main purpose” of sex is!
Kenneth,
Ok, let’s keep going then.
Do you care about Orthodoxy’s views then?
I’ll be the first to say that I care what the RCC thinks, and EO, even if I am a protestant. We are christians, and I generally tend to care what other people in my faith tend to think on important matters, even if they aren’t in my particular tribe.
Maybe that’s just me being weird, I dunno..
Thanks for the response. Take care.
AB,
“Sola Ecclesia” is a misnomer, since Catholics give equal weight to Scripture and Tradition.
Jason,
Ok, the three legged Tradition/Magisterium/Scripture thing. Gotcha – thanks. We protestants are proud Sola Scripturists, so I wouldn’t want you guys locked in to the Sola stuff that we on our side our proud to claim as our own.
I appreciate your conceding that for you to judge the young marrieds in your church would not be appropriate, since I too was able to use barrier methods of contraception during my young married years, and was effectively able to space my three children out in a manner that I felt was conducive to healty family for all of us. I disctinctly remember sitting in economics class and the professor stated that in more advanced societies (whatever that means, i am not an elitist, i am just relating to you my experience) it’s no longer the quality of the children that becomes important, but rather, the quality. Again, this is a crude formulation, but as a man learning things in my teenage years, I held on to that concept, and it fit within my Protestant Paradigm that since condoms were not forbidden in Scripture, nor were they forbidden for me and not a matter for my conscience to be concerned about. I do wonder, as you do, about the young marrieds and the mothers of many children in your church who are trying to do it right but might be doing damage to themselves. That seemed to be Francis’ concern about the woman who had many children who may have ended up killing herself in the process, he told her, as I recall (while he was a bishop or whatever in argentina), “do you want all of your eight children to be orphans?
Probably if I converted to RCism, I might even go on to help those in the church who are raising the voice for the RCC to change her position, those people must exist, I’m sure google could help me find them..
Thanks for the podcast, Jason. Just my thoughts, respond only if you feel like it. I’m good, glad to be welcome here. Take care.
*no longer the quantity, but rather the quality
my econ prof was making the point that the more children a family has, it can have diminishing returns on the health of the family. sorry for that an other typos.
He noted that during a parish visit some months ago, he even “rebuked” a woman who was pregnant again after having seven children, all delivered by Caesarean section. “But do you want to leave seven orphans?” Francis told her. “That is to tempt God!”
Seems like even the atheist worldview knows what the “main purpose” of sex is!
Right. No one is arguing about what the “main purpose” of sex is, just whether or not also having sex solely for the other purposes of sex is a bad thing.
Andrew,
I don’t really keep up with the Eastern Church either. Not because all other christians are irrelevant, but because they just don’t interest me. I have a million and one pet topic I like to learn about, and that generally keeps me busy!
I do find your economic prof. comments interesting though! Quality over quantity. I tend to think that quantity of children is very important. Especially from an economics perspective! I woukd have asked “how do you define a low quality human being?”
Kenneth,
Yeah, that’s a good question. I was more worried about surving the class (upper division econ wasn’t easy, let me tell you!) than arguing for my Christian convictions at the time.
I recall, like Jason, you come from a protestant background, so no doubt as a married man you have experience first hand with this issue as well. Like Jason desired to take that woman to lunch, maybe you can show some mercy to those in your communion who were unable to enjoy the kinds of freedoms that were afforded to you as a protestant with regard to contraception, even if they are no longer freedoms you can enjoy due to your church’s position. I could probably forego my freedoms in this area if I felt the truth claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be worth more of my attention, but I do not believe they do. And hey, while I’m not convinced by the arguments put forward by your church, guess what, I get to be free, God alone is the Lord of the conscience type stuff, see WCF on Xtian liberty.
Grace and peace.
Andrew,
I am only 27 and I already have 3 kids and counting! However, I still wouldn’t judge anyone that is struggling with the idea of having a large family. I fall short in so many areas it would be insane to be critical of someone else’s spiritual life.
Christian,
Easy challenge:
If the world stopped “having sex for fun” and everyone across the board took up the RC moral ethic on family (contraception, abortion, divorce, the whole 9 yards), would the world be better or worse?
Thanks be to Jesus Christ for the immeasurable gift of himself on our behalf, Kenneth. Enjoy this as far as you are able: (emphasis mine)
If the world stopped “having sex for fun” and everyone across the board took up the RC moral ethic on family (contraception, abortion, divorce, the whole 9 yards), would the world be better or worse?
Better in some ways and worse in others.
In what ways would the world be morally worse?
I’m enjoying these podcasts, even as I disagree with some of what I hear on them, as a Catholic who agrees with and supports all of what the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals! 🙂 (I also tend to lean to the right politically, which makes the political content of the podcasts challenging listening at times, but that can be good for me, hehe! Pope Francis has also been good for me in helping me to re-think *certain manifestations* of my political conservatism in light of being a Catholic!)
On a theological (as opposed to political) note, I noticed some speculation in this podcast that if Pope Francis could change Church teaching on certain matters of faith and morals (such as artificial contraception), he would probably do so. However, the Pope has called himself a “loyal son of the Church,” and I see no reason to think that such a statement was “Catholic PR” on his part.
Logically speaking, why would Francis go to the Philippines (a Catholic country where, until recently, artificial contraception was *illegal*) and openly, vocally defend Church teaching *against* artificial contraception, if he actually, privately, would like for the teaching to change? Here’s a well-known, left-leaning, secular newspaper on the Pope and this subject: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pope-francis-catholic-church-contraception
Christian, Sorry to butt in.
It would probably worse in the same kind of way the world would be worse without social media, blogs, or chocolate, IMHO.
Kenneth,
In what ways would the world be morally worse?
You didn’t ask if it would be morally better or worse in your first question. If you’re talking about morals, then I’m afraid we’d be coming at it from two different paradigms since you consider sex outside of marriage to be “sin.” Obviously, viewing it through your paradigm, the world would, in that case, be morally worse. I just don’t share that paradigm. Like I said in the podcast, most of the commandments are obvious, but the Bible’s archaic and outdated (in my opinion) commands regarding sex are not.
Christopher,
I’m enjoying these podcasts, even as I disagree with some of what I hear on them
We’re glad to have a diverse group of listeners! Thanks for sticking with it.
Overpopulation; greater poverty; more victims of starvation in third world nations; more exploitation of the poorest children being sold into slavery by overburdened parents; no escape for a domestic violence victim from their marriage; rape victims being forced to deliver their rapist’s child and being forced to deal with the possibility of their rapist suing for parental rights; more deaths in childbirth or from complications from ectopic pregancies; I’m sure I can think of a few other negative consequences that I would consider morally worse.
Christian,
In what ways would it be worse in general?
Also, I think if we’re going to fantasize about how wonderful the world would be if we all followed something to the letter, I’d start with “loving one another” as we love ourselves or “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” and not the Catholic rules for using your naughty bits. 🙂
Or even “One ring to rule them all”.
Speaking of which, if you happen to find a plain, insignificant gold band lying about somewhere, please let me know. It’s a simple family heirloom. Nothing more.
Hey Christopher! How are you brother? It’s been a while. I want you to know that my family has been praying for your health! Hope all is well.
Kenneth,
In what ways would it be worse in general?
In all the ways comradedread just said plus having to get married to experience any type of sexual pleasure. A. I’ve been there and B. That would suck.
Christian,
In all the ways comradedread just said plus having to get married to experience any type of sexual pleasure. A. I’ve been there and B. That would suck.
It also sucks that we can’t eat all we want without getting fat, but it doesn’t necessarily make the world a worse place to live…. let’s take a look at this silly list of comrades….
Overpopulation; greater poverty; more victims of starvation in third world nations;
So more people = more poverty? I live in a fairly populated state (Texas) in a fairly populated city (houston) and our economy is doing great. In fact, we don’t have much of a problem at all with feeding people (one of the fattest cities in the US). Third world countries have production and resource management problems…. they don’t have population problems. People are the solution, not the obsticle.
more exploitation of the poorest children being sold into slavery by overburdened parents; no escape for a domestic violence victim from their marriage;
Remember we are assuming that families have adopted the RC family ethic…. selling children into slavery doesn’t fit that paradigm. Neither does sticking around and allowing yourself to be beaten by an abusive spouse. RC may not divorce AND remarry. That doesn’t mean the family can not escape from a abusive partner.
rape victims being forced to deliver their rapist’s child and being forced to deal with the possibility of their rapist suing for parental rights;
So I guess you are in favor of killing the rapist child in the womb?!? What the hell did the baby do? For what other crime do we punish the children of the accused?
more deaths in childbirth or from complications from ectopic pregancies;
We would certainly see a higher rate of pregnancy complications that equals the increase in pregnancy…. but that’s no different than the world we live in today.
Kenneth,
but it doesn’t necessarily make the world a worse place to live
Not morally, but that’s not the question. If you were to tell me that I had to be married to have sex, the world would definitely be a worse place in my view.
I did just think of another way the world would be worse if everyone adopted your paradigm: people denying the problems of overpopulation. 😉
Haha there are no problems of over population. That’s just a myth promulgated by feminists and the pro death crowd.
Kenneth,
Haha there are no problems of over population. That’s just a myth promulgated by feminists and the pro death crowd.
See? 😉
If anyone thinks the world is “overpopulated”, which is completely absurd, they should watch this video. I promise you will learn something new, which is always a good thing 🙂
https://youtu.be/WT_CxJfFgh0
So more people = more poverty?
To a Haitian mother who cannot afford to feed the children she already has? Yes.
The world does extend beyond the borders of America, my friend.
Third world countries have production and resource management problems…. they don’t have population problems. People are the solution, not the obsticle.
Oh, I’m sorry, I thought the magical scenario only extended to following the Catholic teachings on sex, divorce, contraception, and abortion. I didn’t realize we also magically did away with greed, corruption, despotic governments, and ethnic hatreds.
Might as well throw in replicators, warp drive, and Tribbles at this point.
Remember we are assuming that families have adopted the RC family ethic…. selling children into slavery doesn’t fit that paradigm.
No, we were assuming everyone was following the church’s teachings on sex, contraception, divorce, and abortion. Didn’t realize everyone also voluntarily gave up slavery and the exploitation of minors.
And you’d be surprised what choices folks will make when it comes down to eating for another day or watching their existing family starve.
Neither does sticking around and allowing yourself to be beaten by an abusive spouse. RC may not divorce AND remarry. That doesn’t mean the family can not escape from a abusive partner.
Well, let’s hope the family has the means to escape or a safe place to stay. And then we’ll go ahead and assume that the kids will be growing up without a mother or father because the escaped spouse can never remarry or try to build a new family until the abusive dirtbag dies.
So I guess you are in favor of killing the rapist child in the womb?!?
I’m pro-life. But I’m really not arrogant enough to tell a woman who has been victimized that she must go on being victimized potentially for the next 18 years of her life. It’s her choice.
I’m also not going to assume that that a single-cell organism that’s just been created by the fusing of two smaller cells is morally and ethically a human being rather than a potential human being.
Simple test. There’s a fire in a building. On floor is a day care center filled with five children. On another floor is a IVF clinic with 100 embryos frozen and stored. You can only save one group. Do you save the five toddlers or the 100 embryos?
Me? I’m getting the five toddlers. And I won’t have a moment’s hesitation.
but that’s no different than the world we live in today.
Yes, but in the world we live in today, women have the option to end a high-risk pregnancy or opt to save their lives at the expense of their fetus in a critical health emergency.
Under the ‘ideal’ world, she’s more likely to die if such an emergency occurs.
Kenneth,
From your video: “Many of the world’s nations are barely replacing themselves, while a growing majority have birth rates below replacement…many societies are facing a very real danger: extinction.”
Dude, this is complete balogna. There were less than 4 billion people on the planet when I was born. There are over 7 billion now. The earth’s population has increased by almost 150,000 today alone! LOL. Here’s a clock for you to keep track of it: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/.
The issue is not whether or not there’s enough land for everyone to put a house on. This video is like someone telling me that climate change isn’t real because it snowed where they lived last year.
Christian,
Did you finish the video? its a series of 4 videos in one. It doesnt end with the first clip. Your concerns about population are addressed further in. Its only 10 minutes long total, but you already got through the first! May as well finish
BTW,
Global warming hasnt taken place in the last 18 years and counting. Which means no one in high school today has experienced a day of global warming in their life time…. Seems odd, considering that the last 18 years have set records in carbon emissions…
Rather than an exhaustive point by point rebuttal as others have done, it seems rather clear to me that the problem, as Kenneth himself basically points out on his second comment, regarding sex only for procreation is that it is such a fantasy world that it doesn’t really bear much scrutiny or discussion.
The world wouldn’t need religion if we were all perfect moral actors.
I do not mean any disrespect to any religious people but it would be a lot easier to hop on the Jesus wagon if his followers didn’t hold so many retrograde positions.
Kenneth,
Did you finish the video?
Yes, I subjected myself to all ten minutes of propaganda.
Global warming hasnt taken place in the last 18 years and counting.
LOL, Kenneth. I just realized that arguing with you was like arguing with myself when I was 27, which was probably pointless.
Greg,
it would be a lot easier to hop on the Jesus wagon if his followers didn’t hold so many retrograde positions.
But even the Bible says it’s not easy to follow Jesus. “Take up your cross and follow me”, “It’s impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”, etc. Neither God nor his followers should care about making it any “easier,” especially since the Bible makes it clear that the vast majority of people are headed to destruction.
Global warming hasnt taken place in the last 18 years and counting.
Verily, Copernicus, you doth indeed bringeth overwhelming scientific evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun, but His Holiness hath found an engineer on Fox News that doth say you are full of cow excrement.
Kenneth,
Post more star wars will ya? I’m not watching anything else. We the “religious” may be fighting an uphill battle against all these secularists. But there is a new hope, my friend. As our bud at the oldblog says,
try harder, do moretry less, drink more booze.Anyone who doesn’t believe in at least the potential for an over population need only realize we are almost up to 50 comments already, and it’s only monday, in this comment section. How many people read this? 10 people, 800 clicks or so? Yeah, this is overcrowded. And Dick Bush hasn’t even made an appearance yet.
Guys, it’s your world. We’re just living in it.
Peace.
Comrade,
So in Haiti if we reduced the population all of their woes would disappear. All the wars, famine, poor use of resources, horrible infrastructure, poverty, and civil unrest would magically vanish? Don’t you see how you have misdiagnosed the problem? The issue isn’t that they have too many people. If it were, any state that reached the same population level as Haiti would immediately become a third world country. Which is obviously silly.
LOL the point is that greed, corruption, despotic governments, and ethnic hatreds are the cause of the nations hardships. It has nothing to do with their population.
OK, fair enough. Lets assume that selling children into slavery was still on the table. India is one of the worst when it comes to people selling off their daughters an early age. Child slavery is rampant over there, but is the population to blame? That is a case you need to make. You only just got done saying that what drives these families to sell their children is their poverty. We are talking less than a dollar a day poverty. This kind of thing isnt caused by population. Its caused by poor government, infrastructure, etc. How do you fix poor government, infrastructure etc? YOU NEED PEOPLE. People are the solution not the problem. Also consider how many of those families have a single parent! They would be less impoverished if they would only listen to the Church.
Look at how far you have to stretch to find negatives! The only difference between this scenerio and the one we live in today is that the woman will not remarry. She would still receive child support, and all the other aid that would usually come. Plus, she will have a vested interest in making sure the husband gets the help he needs to recover. The husband will have a vested interest in SEEKING help, knowing that he cant just get a fresh start with some other woman. Also think of how much more careful women will be in selecting their husbands! Falling for the bad guy all of a sudden seems less appealing when forever REALLY MEANS forever.
You are pro-life, but you are pro killing the children of rapists. Got it.
I love the language you used there. “The fusing of two cells”. If you dont want to “assume” life begins at fertilization you could just pick up any standard bio text.
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O’Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29.
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
Explain to me the reasons why you would choose the toddlers over the younger humans and we will see how well your reasoning holds water.
WTF. I need to have a serious conversation with Joel Osteen. /sarcasm
So, Jesus’ sacrifice actually doesn’t mean a whole lot?
Christian,
Yes, I subjected myself to all ten minutes of propaganda.
Ha ha! You know you loved it!!! C’mon. You don’t like hearing about data from the U.N.?
LOL, Kenneth. I just realized that arguing with you was like arguing with myself when I was 27, which was probably pointless.
WAIT! You used to know everything too?!? Its like that movie limitless. Something about being 27 years old…. If I stretch my self too far I’ll end up like Jimmy Hendrix, Cobain, and company…. yikes!
But seriously though, you didnt know about the near 20 year global warming pause? Its quite the source of embarrassment. ZERO of the UN climate models predicted this happening. Too bad for Al Gore.
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html
Interesting that you bring up 27, as I just read this: https://theconversation.com/the-27-club-is-a-myth-56-is-the-bum-note-for-musicians-33586
And when I read the following quote, in an article talking about design, I couldn’t help but think about how much it also applies to religion:
So I presume by your answer, Kenneth, that you would go for the 100 embryos and let the 5 toddlers burn? Or should I presume you’d rather not answer the question.
Kenneth,
Ha ha about being 27! Dude, I knew everything and was at least as confident as you are in all my beliefs. Can’t wait to talk to you in 15 years. You can buy me a few drinks and apologize.
But seriously though, you didnt know about the near 20 year global warming pause? Its quite the source of embarrassment. ZERO of the UN climate models predicted this happening. Too bad for Al Gore.
I highly suggest you do some actual research to understand climate change. Get the idea out of your head that because it used to be called “global warming” it means that each year is going to be sequentially warmer than the year before it.
Seriously, at this point, I’m starting to think you’re just trolling. 🙂
You are pro-life, but you are pro killing the children of rapists. Got it.
Nice try. I’m pro-life, but I’m not going to force my view upon a victim facing a traumatic and incredibly painful decision that I will never face. If she wants to face that pain, I think we should support her and her child. If she can’t face that pain, then I’m not going to tell her that I know better because a 3,000 year old book (that says she should be stoned for being raped in a city without being rescued) tells me I have to force her to face it. Her choice.
“The fusing of two cells”. If you dont want to “assume” life begins at fertilization you could just pick up any standard bio text.
Nice strawman. Go re-read what I wrote. I didn’t say life didn’t being at conception. I said that I’m not going to give a single-celled organism the same moral and ethical weight as a fully formed, breathing, and delivered human child.
And neither would most people, I would hazard.
Christian,
I’ll buy you a few drinks and apologize today if I’ve hurt your feelings. I enjoy challenging people’s untouchables. I certainly don’t mind you challenging mine! Don’t forget that I have actually changed my mind on important issues several times in my twenties. Pentacostal to Lutheran to RC. I like to think it was one fluid movement into the Church but my family thinks I’m a flake! Ha! Plus I actually agreed with climate change and overpopulation up until the last few years. So I’m not as bull headed as you might imagine.
I’m aware what constitutes climate change. I’m also aware that in order for it to be man made we should see an increase that corresponds with carbon emmission output. Happily, that hasn’t happened in almost two decades. Soon the global warming “pause” will have lasted longer than the global warming surge that had everyone so alarmed. Some of the top climate scientists in the world claim that there is ZERO evidence of man caused global warming. People from MIT, Berkley, etc. Over 100k American scientists signed a petition stating that global warming was not man caused. You’ll never hear this on comedy central or cnn…. but the case really isn’t that concrete
Kenneth,
I’ll buy you a few drinks and apologize today if I’ve hurt your feelings
You haven’t hurt my feelings. I just like free drinks. 😉
Comrade,
I’ll re-frame your question and then answer it in a straight forward fashion. Suppose a poison has been concocted to murder children under the age of 5. In one building you have 50 pregnant mothers, all in the first ten weeks of pregnancy. In the other you have five toddlers. Both groups are sitting down for lunch. Do you stop the 50 mothers from poisoning 50 unborn babies, or do you save the 5 toddlers? Seems different now doesn’t it? Depersonalizing the fetus is a common tactic in the pro-death camp. Always has been. From Nazi Germany to planned parenthood its all the same propaganda.
No, you have a much more innocent and helpless victim in mind. One who doesn’t get any say in the decision at all.
In case you haven’t noticed, Im not overly concerned with what “most people” think. 🙂
Just so i can follow your logic, are you saying that more cells=more intrinsic value?(I suppose Yao Ming is more valuable than minime) Or are you saying that it all boils down to ones capacity to use their organs? (too bad for all those wounded warriors coming home with prosthetic limbs…. )
Kenneth, I would still save the children first.
A child has smiled. A child has seen a sunrise. A child has laughed. A child has discovered the world around her. A child has grabbed his father’s pinky with his chubby little hand. A parent has watched over and cared for the child from the first day they were born and probably before that. A child has spoken and learned. A child has created memories. A child has a name.
A fetus represents a hope and future for something similar. But the, but all it is so far is that: hope and potential. If my wife told me we had a miscarriage, I would mourn at the loss of never getting to experience its life, but I would recover.
If my wife told me we lost our son or daughter, I would be destroyed.
Yes, I would save the children from a fire. I would save them from being poisoned. Because a living, breathing child matters more to me than cellular organism that could become a living breathing child in the future.
You may continue to allege I am a Nazi or a monster, I don’t care. I’d have zero regrets making the choice I’ve said I would make.
comrade,
There aren’t any “nonchildren” involved.
Sadly, all 50 children in their mothers wombs will never get that chance. They will never have the opportunity to smile, see a sunrise, laugh, discover, or coo at their parents. That life will be snuffed out. Not by natural causes, but by its own mother.
That has more to do with your own emotional ties to the children and less to do with their intrinsic worth as human beings.
You are assuming that an adult is NOT a cellular organism, but of course that is false. We are all cellular organisms. The only difference is that one has developed further than the other. Both are just as valuable.
I said you are promulgating the same kind of propaganda as nazis. Not that you actually are one. Any time someone wants to pull off a genocide they first need to dehumanize their victims. WHich is exactly what planned parenthood and others do. Its nothing more than the womans body. Just a cellular organism. Not even really human. Only problem is that they have no consistent criteria by which to explain exactly WHY its not human.
On the subject of overpopulation, it’s interesting to me that the voices who are most vocal about it being a “serious problem” tend to be Western voices– when, in actuality, European countries, and the West in general, are suffering a potentially disastrous *population decline*. This piece from a U.K. paper tells the real story of “dying” Western countries. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11414064/How-Europe-is-slowly-dying-despite-an-increasing-world-population.html
This is also not just a problem in the Western world. Japan’s absolutely calamitous population decline has been ongoing for years. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/
Hey, Kenneth! Thanks for your prayers, brother! My health (and with it, level of daily pain) has slowly but definitely improved since last year!
Christian,
In this podcast, you mention having less respect for Catholics who actually seem to agree with, support, and love all of the Church’s official teachings than you have for Catholics who just say, “Some of these teachings make no sense whatsoever, but I have to believe them, because I’m Catholic, so I do!”
I’m honestly wondering– how does your view, as expressed in the podcast, not boil down to you essentially saying, “I have more respect for Catholics to the degree that they don’t actually *try to understand* the Church’s teachings but rather just mindlessly go along with them”?
Is there even a category in your mind in which intelligent people (Catholic and non-Catholic) could look into the Catholic Church’s sexual teaching, research it, and actually find it coherent and compelling?
When I was a five-point Calvinist who was firmly convinced that “consistent Catholics” are not even Christians, one of the few distinctively Catholic teachings that made perfect sense to me was the teaching on sexuality– including the teaching against artificial contraception. I struggled with how most of my Protestant friends didn’t seem to see the logic of it!
On that note, you mention that you think the Catholic Church should teach about the importance of pleasure, *as well as* procreation, with sex in marriage. However, the Church *already* teaches that and has done so for a long time. Have you read “Humanae Vitae”? http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html
I’ve never been a mindless follower of *anything*. I’m a pretty skeptical person by temperament. My trajectory of faith has, seemingly, been the exact opposite of yours. For almost ten years, I veered between agnosticism and atheism. When I hear most of the objections that you have to Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular, those objections have some resonance with me, because I shared them for some time myself.
In becoming a Christian, and later, a Catholic Christian, I did not put my ability to think critically on the shelf. I never could have done that. In many ways, I’m probably a more consistently critical thinker as a Catholic than I was as an agnostic (or atheist, depending on the year that someone asked me)! It seems strange that you would actually have less respect for the thoughtful Catholic who has looked into the Church’s teachings, and who supports them, than you would for the Catholic who just mindlessly “goes along to get along” because he or she is Catholic– but if so, so be it!
Christian,
One rule on the free drinks…. NO SOUTHERN COMFORT! Irish whiskey baby!!!
Kenneth, I read this comment and thought it’d be interesting to discuss more.
“I’m aware what constitutes climate change. I’m also aware that in order for it to be man made we should see an increase that corresponds with carbon emmission output. Happily, that hasn’t happened in almost two decades.”
Climate change isn’t just impacted but carbon emission output. There are lots of other factors that contribute at varying rates. Methane specifically is a good example because it much more volatile towards climate change than CO2. One of the big things that’s not understood is with regards to chemical fixation. Carbon and nitrogen fixation play a big role in keeping green house gas numbers. The impacts of deforestation can be linked just as much as CO2 output. There are just so many things to account for that it’s nearly impossible to take measures and say this is the big link. Everything is intertwined and being able to account and predict climate with precision is extremely hard to the complexity.
Even though complex, there are things that can be measure and one of the big concerns is with ice caps melting at rates exceeding anything ever recorded. The gases fixated in them will enter the atmosphere at very high rates. You can find some videos of people lighting fires on ice because methane is being released from the ice as it thaws. Knowing that this will occur is one major concern to the ppm for CO2 and methane but it’s obviously possible for there to be more than those two. The other concern with icecap melt is for both ocean and air currents. This will lead to climates changing from what they typically experience now. It’ll also lead to an increase in variability and severity of weather patterns people experience.
With regards to your link, an 18 year window is a very small sample for data but still shows an increase of 0.21 degrees C. That still shows that there is in fact change occurring just averaged to a standard rate. I encourage you to look at these graphs measured through NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
I said you are promulgating the same kind of propaganda as nazis. Not that you actually are one.
I honestly can’t think of anything to say to this that doesn’t end in telling you to do something profane to yourself, so I’m going to go away and have a few drinks and think of a more creative way of saying it.
Mr. Cup,
This is a fantastic point. It is near impossible to predict climate changes, which gives me even less confidence in the global warming theorists! Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (climate scientist from Harvard) spoke in front of the Senate environment and public works committee and said:
Due to the inherent unpredictability of climate systems it is impossible to accurately use models to determine future weather. Climate models have been unable to simulate major known features of past climate such as the ice ages or the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous periods. If models cannot replicate past climate changes they should not be trusted to predict future climate changes.
Not a single climate model presented to the UN predicted a 20 year pause of warming. At some point you have to ask the question: are these people really following the scientific evidence, or are they just following the steady flow of grant money?
But are human beings the cause of this phenomena? Willie Soon, Physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, stated the following:
“There is no quantitative evidence that varying levels of minor greenhouse gases like CO2 and CH4 have accounted for even as much as half of the reconstructed glacial-interglacial temperature changes or, more importantly, for the large variations in global ice volume on both land and sea over the past 650kyr [650,000 years]. This paper shows that changes in solar insolation [amount of solar energy hitting the earth] at climatically sensitive latitudes and zones exceed the global radiative forcings [greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere traping solar heat] of CO2 and CH4 by severalfold…
[T]he popular notion of CO2 and CH4 radiative forcing as the predominant amplifier of glacial-interglacial phase transitions cannot be confirmed…
Our basic hypothesis is that long-term climate change is driven by insolation changes, from both orbital variations and intrinsic solar magnetic luminosity variations. This implies natural warming and cooling variations.”
Although those graphs can look alarming, they do not represent anything new. The 20th century warming of 1-1.4°F is within the +/- 5°F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics shows temperatures from 1000-1100 AD (before fossil fuel use) that are comparable to those from 1900-1990. This research was backed up by Dr. Ander Moberg and Dr. Arthur B. Robinson (Oregon institute of science and medicine). The trick is keeping your eyes on the ball! Is climate change happening? Yes. Are we seeing a change of climate unlike anything in the earths history? No. Is there very strong evidence that humans are the cause of what we are observing? Not really.
Many organizations believe that nature, not human activity, is primarily responsible for climate change. These groups include: the Heartland Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the CATO Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Ill leave you with this quote from Dr. William Grey of Colorado University
“A high percentage of meteorologists and/or climate scientists do not agree that the climate changes we have seen are mostly manmade. Thousands of us think the larger part of the climate changes we have observed over the last century are of natural origin. I believe most of the changes that have been observed are due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in deep global ocean currents. Such changes have yet to be properly incorporated into the global models or into most climate modelers’ thinking…
Many scientists believe a slightly warmer world would be, in general, more beneficial for humanity. The small changes in climate we have seen so far and the changes we will likely see in the coming decades are not potentially dangerous. It has been noted that vegetation growth is enhanced by higher CO2 levels…
[T]he global climate models will never be able to replicate the complex global atmosphere/ocean environment and its continuing changes…
We should all call out faulty science wherever we see it, including the blind belief (without any evidence beyond the faulty models) that humans are largely responsible for climate change.”
Early in the discussion the question was asked “In what ways would the world be worse?” in regard to following Catholic teaching on the family (sex, contraception, divorce etc).- later revised to morally worse if I followed the discussion correctly.
The moral word is one that is so subjective it makes the question pretty much impossible to answer outside of an agreed framework of morality. I’ve preferred the term ethical for as long as I can recall and even that is still subjective. Thinking about it in terms of some christian views on suffering (generally others suffering but not always) it’s difficult to even answer in it’s original form.
If you think a life of suffering to perfect grace is a good thing then downsides are hard to identify. If you think the planets eco-system is able to cope with uncontrolled increasing numbers of humans (or expect god to bring on the end times before the crash comes) the population is not much of an issue.
For a world view that says this life and the legacy we leave for the future is all we have individually then those catholic teachings have some serious downsides.
Spending your life married to a psychopath (and raising children with them) because of a bad initial choice (a choice impacted by the problems arising from a ban on pre-marital sex) makes life far worse than it needs to be both for the individual and the children.
Leaving the world with an ever expanding population and an ever more damaged eco-system and depleted resources (regardless of a position on humanities impact on climate change) is a massive down side.
For those unable to find a partner or who are free to divorce (but not remarry) teachings on sex outside of marriage cuts out for many pretty much all avenues for intimacy and close physical contact and we are beings who generally do far better with intimacy and close physical contact.
For women lack of access to contraception limits their options massively as pregnancy and early child care are biological realities that are hard to escape or control under that framework of teaching.
The current Pope has also been discussed in this comments section.
I’ve generally been impressed by Pope Francis but am somewhat staggered by “Francis’s approval of Chilean bishop Juan Barros, who is alleged to have covered up for a notorious South American paedophile” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/26/pope-faces-protests-by-sex-abuse-board-against-bishops-appointment
Bob
So far I’ve listened to the break, and I love the conversation you two are having! As a Catholic I am somewhere between Jason and conservative Catholics on contraception. One point I think you guys are missing is the view of natural law and Catholicism’s view of contraception. Take all the morality out of it and just look at the biology of it. A woman is suppose to ovulate every month, and if she is having vaginal sex on a regular basis she is suppose to get pregnant. If she is not ovulating every month or she is not getting pregnant then something is not working correctly. Insurance companies had the same thought process when they refused to cover contraception. Nothing is broken so why should we pay to fix it? Contraception makes a woman infertile while she is using it, so it is intentionally creating a biological abnormality instead of fixing one. So the Catholic Church views that as an affront to natural law and God’s design. Ironically, some feminists have the same agreement as the Catholic Church, “my menstrual cycle is not an abnormality that needs to be regulated by pharmaceuticals!” But like Jason, I disagree with the Church’s view on masturbation, oral and anal sex. Those sex acts can never be pro-creative so participating can’t be an affront to natural law. If I do get married, I could see myself using Natural Family Planning, but I wouldn’t be the model Catholic for its use, since I wouldn’t see any problem having non procreative sex during the fertile period with my husband. I think it can be said that contracepting heterosexuals are more of an offense to natural law than practicing homosexuals.
You guys mentioned what is the difference between having sex with your wife when you know she can’t get pregnant and pulling out when you think she can. The difference is your sex life is working in conjunction with a woman’s menstrual cycle not against it. When a woman is not fertile sperm will die within 6 hours inside of a woman, when she is approaching ovulation her body releases secretions that can allow sperm to live 3-5 days, so your just letting nature do its thing. That said, I don’t think the Church necessarily advocates for as many children as God will allow, using NFP to space out the birth of children is acceptable, so if Jason had been a practicing Catholic when he was just married he could have used it for the first 7 years of his marriage and not run afoul of Church teaching…….using it until menopause would be though……and I have to admit that is how i would want to use it!
tl;dr.
Reading this on my phone. That’s probably a major contributor to my irritation with these comments that scroll and scroll and scroll, often due to quoting other comments.
But. This is a place to discuss our responses to the podcasts, so I’ll try to either play nicely or go home.
Maybe it made sense at one point to “go forth and multiply,” but seems like we might have accomplished that now. Makes more sense to me to be a little more conservative when it comes to populating the earth, not just pop out as many babies as we can.
Isn’t this the exact same position as the Dinosaur Lady and her position on the sweet, sweet nectar of money to paleontologist? And that is what a lot of anti-science position boils down to: let’s just blame it on the greedy scientists. Kenneth, do you know any actual scientist, of any flavour, and would you say that the scientist you know is primarily or even secondarily motivated by money?
Susan – Sorry about the block quote but that’s an excellent point, however, if there were no existential crisis then I think people would find pretty quickly that the whole idea of religion may be a little passé. After all, if you poke enough holes into a bucket, pretty soon all the water will leak out.
Serena, so NFP is okay (counter-cycling, pulling out, etc) but using a condom isn’t? That seems quite similar to the Catholic school girl who says anal is okay because it’s not vaginal intercourse, e.g. getting around God’s “laws” on a technicality. I mean, what is natural vs un-natural? It’s not as if some space aliens visited Earth and dropped off some condoms for us to use, human beings invented the thing.
The Church would think if a husband and wife used a condom or diaphragm, they are putting a physical barrier in the sex act that keeps them from experiencing the sex act to its fullest and are preventing the act from being fully unitive. I’m sure if you were to ask most to describe a sexual fantasy or their ideal sexual experience, the point of stopping to put on a condom probably won’t get mentioned even if condoms are a part of their sex life, because it wouldn’t be part of the ideal experience. It’s just something that needs to be done.
Still surprised DXP hasn’t brought up that lesbians get a free pass in the Bible …. which should indicate the level of men’s involvement in the authoring of the Law. [This under assumption that Romans speaks specifically about temple prostitutes rather than lesbians generally.]
Greg,
Isn’t this the exact same position as the Dinosaur Lady and her position on the sweet, sweet nectar of money to paleontologist? And that is what a lot of anti-science position boils down to: let’s just blame it on the greedy scientists. Kenneth, do you know any actual scientist, of any flavour, and would you say that the scientist you know is primarily or even secondarily motivated by money?
Does the dinosaur lady have backing from the top scientists at Harvard? I am open to the possibility of man made climate change. Just produce some evidence outside of climate models that are completely unreliable and have been shown time and time again to miss the mark. The global warming of the 20th century is near identical to the global warming of the dark ages (1000-1100ad)….. so what’s the alarm?!?
Christopher,
It seems strange that you would actually have less respect for the thoughtful Catholic who has looked into the Church’s teachings, and who supports them, than you would for the Catholic who just mindlessly “goes along to get along” because he or she is Catholic– but if so, so be it!
Let me ask you a question. You are faced with 3 people:
Do you respect them all equally? If not, please put them in order of who you respect most to least.
Bob,
Early in the discussion the question was asked “In what ways would the world be worse?” in regard to following Catholic teaching on the family (sex, contraception, divorce etc).- later revised to morally worse if I followed the discussion correctly.
The moral word is one that is so subjective it makes the question pretty much impossible to answer outside of an agreed framework of morality. I’ve preferred the term ethical for as long as I can recall and even that is still subjective. Thinking about it in terms of some christian views on suffering (generally others suffering but not always) it’s difficult to even answer in it’s original form.
Just answer from your own moral framework. We need not agree on every aspect of morality. From your own perspective how would the world be morally inferior to the one we live in today? It’s a great question, because it highlights the errors of modernity. We intuitively know the RC family ethic is the one we should all embrace…. it’s just that it’s so damnation hard lol
If you think a life of suffering to perfect grace is a good thing then downsides are hard to identify. If you think the planets eco-system is able to cope with uncontrolled increasing numbers of humans (or expect god to bring on the end times before the crash comes) the population is not much of an issue.
For a world view that says this life and the legacy we leave for the future is all we have individually then those catholic teachings have some serious downsides.
Drum role…… such as?
Spending your life married to a psychopath (and raising children with them) because of a bad initial choice (a choice impacted by the problems arising from a ban on pre-marital sex) makes life far worse than it needs to be both for the individual and the children.
What a completely loaded assertion. “A choice impacted by the problems of chastity”? Go ahead and look up the success of the marriages that abstain until marriage. They are FAR better off than those who live with each other ahead of time. If a woman loved this psychopath enough to marry him AND have his children, she should stick with him through his mental illness. That’s what love is all about. If he is hurting the family the should separate until he gets the help that is necessary. If he refuses they should remain seperate. Sure, this isn’t an ideal situation, but how is this situation qualitatively worse than what we see with families today?!?
Leaving the world with an ever expanding population and an ever more damaged eco-system and depleted resources (regardless of a position on humanities impact on climate change) is a massive down side.
So our existence is a down side? Our thriving as a species is a downside because we are consumers? You forget that we are also producers, and possess a mind that is more than capable of forming newer and better ways of conserving our planet.
For those unable to find a partner or who are free to divorce (but not remarry) teachings on sex outside of marriage cuts out for many pretty much all avenues for intimacy and close physical contact and we are beings who generally do far better with intimacy and close physical contact.
So you think a prostitute is better off than someone who is living a chaste life? Hardly. One can experience close ties, love, family, and joy without sleeping around. In fact, I think one is MORE inclined to experience those things with less eexual partners.
For women lack of access to contraception limits their options massively as pregnancy and early child care are biological realities that are hard to escape or control under that framework of teaching.
They should not be escaped or controlled. They should be embraced as they represent what it is to be human.
Serena – Isn’t the Catholic Church also against contraceptives like Plan B and birth control pills? Another way to look at it, for me, is, similar to GMO. People tend to be okay with selective breeding but recoil at genetic modification — which is what selective breeding is but done at a much more granular and specific level. So too with condoms, meaning, if the Catholic Church is okay with NFP (e.g. not the only sex permissible is procreative) then why not a more scientific/full proof method, like condoms? Sorry if I’m just muddling the water.
Kenneth –
Because there are significantly more people living on earth than over a thousand years ago? But snarky answer to your non response to my question aside, here’s a graph of weather over the past 2000 years, sadly it ends at 2004 (a full decade ago), just look at the trend lines:
“2000 Year Temperature Comparison“. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Here’s a NASA article (a agency which receives 0.50% of the federal budget) with a graph that is NOT modeled but instrumental records which shows a near vertical climb in temperature. A rate that has never been documented before: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
And honestly, as a person who doesn’t have kids, I really have no dog in this fight because when the shit hits the proverbial fan, I will be six feet under. Your kids, they’ll be the one living through the consequences of our action or inaction. So I guess that’s the alarm?
Yo Christian, another read to move towards another comment system, comments aren’t stuck in moderation hell (or is that purgatory?).
Greg,
comments aren’t stuck in moderation hell
Greg, we have a few rules set up that we like for needing to have comments approved. One is new commenters, and another is a bunch of links. We usually get comments approved pretty fast.
Greg,
Those are just more models. ZERO of which predicted a 20 year pause in global warming and none of which can ever accurately plug in all of the factors necessary to make accurate predictions. Everyone acknowledges that its getting warmer. Now show me some evidence that we are responsible. Keep your eyes on the ball
Everyone acknowledges that its getting warmer.
No, snowballs still exist. Therefore, there can be no global warming. The GOP told me so.
And you can’t trust NASA, those guys are all living large off with blackjack and hookers on the sweet government money they get every year to study ‘Climate Change’, which is a hoax, never you mind Miami slowly disappearing underwater or what those other pointy-haired con artist scientists say.
Kenneth –
I guess I am at a loss to what you want then… readings from instruments (not models) show that we have been warming at a faster rate than ever before. Zero models involved in that.
Christian – Just yanking your chain man. 😀
Enjoy:
Greg,
That is not true. I just posted the ground breaking work by the Harvard Smithsonian Institute of astronomy showing that the rise in temperature is not unprecedented but is comparable to times past. The old hockey stick graph of temperatures rising the way that graph showcases are nearly extinct. In any case, it doesnt really matter. Humans can always find ways to live in more conservative ways. if we are responsible for the heat, we should curtail our behavior. No impact on contraception being an immoral act.
Kenneth
“We intuitively know the RC family ethic is the one we should all embrace” – who is this we you speak of?
I’ve looking at studies regarding links between cohabiting and relationship success (and variations on those themes) previously and none that I’m aware of really address all the significant factors. Generally they look at the length of a relationship as the mark of success rather than the quality ignoring the rather obvious point that people who don’t have sex before marriage (or cohabit) are likely to have strong views on divorce as well and may stick out a horrid marriage regardless of the harm being done to all concerned. The issue is more complex that that I’m not writing an article here.
Why do you assume that the psychopath (or other deeply disturbed person) is a he? Not that the gender should be the issue but your response was interesting. There are a lot of good reasons to not stay in a relationship with a genuinely abusive person. There are those who can probably stick it out without getting harmed by the abuse, who find ways to protect kids from the environment but I suspect they are few and far between.
In regard to pregnancy or child rearing being very hard for women to escape or control under catholic teaching “They should be embraced as they represent what it is to be human.” Interesting view in terms of support for a church that places such emphasis on lifelong chastity for so many deeply involved in the church. Being human covers a lot of ground, reproduction is one part of it but there is a lot else to that picture much of which becomes far less accessible (mostly to women) without some control over conception.
Bob
I give up.
go here, if you are interested in tim keller’s view on sex in marriage:
http://oldlife.org/2013/11/dont-view-full-stomach/
and click on the “it” in the first sentence
sorry, stupid youtube, stupid me.
next.
AB, I think this is what you were trying to post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=PLhZejCzDImAe7d54VIX4brt8atWzclEW0&v=YKdSLsGMcnA
I don’t agree with much of what he said. At least, it wasn’t my experience or the experience of almost anyone I know. It just sounds like more Christian scare tactics, which is what I grew up with.
if anyone is interested and not wanting to go to the old blog, go to the youtube i posted, top left corner “playlist” and find “why is sex outside of marriage so destructive” by tim keller, it’s playlist #27 out of 44.
Christian, yeah, I was just presenting a view. For me, sex in marriage has worked out fine. I hope that my comments serve to steer the ship back to what you are talking about, these threads go off the rails a lot, global warming, etc. anyway, hope you are well, i’ll stop posting comments now. peace.
Why do you assume that the psychopath (or other deeply disturbed person) is a he?
What’s funny is that I assumed it was a “she.” Ha ha! Probably says a lot about me. 🙂
Christian, yep, that’s it. Thanks for fixing that and your thoughts on it. Take care.
Sure, AB!
“Sex inside of marriage is magic.” – Not for the majority of married people I’ve known!
“Sex outside of marriage is just a way of not giving of yourself, but of receiving pleasure.” – I suppose it can be, but so can sex inside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage certainly doesn’t have to be that way. (I mean, it has to be that way according to the Christian paradigm!)
“The more you do it, the less payoff there is.” Ummmm, yeah, again, where are you getting this?
Sometimes I think people keep saying stuff like this to control people and because they want it to be true. Maybe if they keep repeating it, it’ll be true.
It’s like Tim Keller doesn’t believe it’s possible to love someone outside of marriage.
Christian, sorry, I said I’d stop posting, but one last one. Here I go.
I recently read this:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian-Family-Herman-Bavinck-ebook/dp/B00A5FERXG
So is there space to argue whether Tim Keller is right? Whether the Bible or Jesus is right? Sure there is. Just because I happen to agree with them doesn’t make me right, I know that. This is a major subject, man, and I tend to just watch the sparks fly – I don’t really believe this medium allows for much useful dialogue or debate anyway, that’s just me. More a way to link to thinks we like so that people can explore on their own. Again, thanks for your views. That’s all I got on this subject, at least what I am willing to share with the public 😉
I don’t really believe this medium allows for much useful dialogue or debate anyway
I agree, Andrew. I get caught up here from time to time, but our goal has never been to convince anyone of our views. That rarely works anyway. As a matter of fact, I think the only actual goal we’ve ever had is to be entertaining. Ha!
Clearly the main problem is the idea that bald people have sex. That’s an image I just don’t want in my head.
On a more serious note there were were lots of assumptions about differences between sex inside and outside of marriage that I doubt very much are backed by any credible research. So many factors involved including the highly subjective nature of the sexual experience itself and our willingness to discuss honestly perceptions of the quality. As Christian (the agnostic DXP kind of Christian not the other sort) pointed out, more Christian scare tactics.
Christian,
Thanks for the reply and for the thoughtful question.
I respect the Catholic and the agnostic whom you describe equally– because in my mind, how could I *not* respect someone who has *truly, honestly researched* the world’s major religions and sincerely reached an *honestly* skeptical conclusion about them all, even as much as I seriously disagree with that conclusion?
About the the Muslim who has honestly researched his or her faith, and come to the conclusion that faithful Muslims must kill infidels, *and* has decided to actually *be* an infidel-killing Muslim, I have less respect for that person. It’s hard for me to have great respect for any person who actually believes, and lives out, the “conviction” that people of other faiths, or no faith, should be killed, simply *because* of that difference in faith or lack of faith. This includes those Catholics in other eras who believed in the killing of some non-Catholics. Pope (now-Saint) John Paul II literally traveled the world fervently apologizing for the sins of those Catholics.
Most people here clearly disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching against artificial contraception. I understand that; I didn’t agree with it for a long time myself.
However, just in the interest of providing a differing perspective to the majority one, this post shares the thoughts of women who *do* agree with that teaching (the post should probably say “I don’t use *artificial* birth control,” though, given that many of these women probably do practice NFP): http://www.catholicsistas.com/2014/07/17/dont-use-birth-control/
Christopher,
Thanks for answering. I agree with you on the person who believes that people with different beliefs should be killed, but I’m not sure I would respect the Catholic and the Agnostic equally. Respecting the Muslim less demonstrates that it’s not just thoughtfulness and sincerity that earn respect but it’s also what someone believes. To be completely honest, I’ve been struggling with this question all day. I never meant to come across like I don’t respect someone who thoughtfully and honestly believes something different than myself. However, this question I posed makes me wonder what it is that we respect. It’s not justare worthy of respect.
Nevertheless, my offhand comment to Jason was more of a reaction to people who just believe something without questioning it. I respect that Jason admits that the contraception teaching of the Catholic church is a bit illogical to him more than I respect someone who says it makes sense without ever really thinking about it. If that doesn’t include you, then I meant you no disrespect.
Christopher,
From the article you linked to: “Because sex is for babies and bonding…”
And pleasure, right? The author meant to say pleasure I’m guessing?
Also, that page seems to be solely about the pill.
Christian & Christopher, I’m curious as to how much you respect the devote Christians in Indiana who just passed the “religious freedom” law. Also semi topical since it enshrines discrimination, something you guys believed that the market should take care of.
Christopher,
Thanks for weighing in. On podcast 35, I mentioned this:
The morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It is essentially a higher dose of the hormones present in regular birth control and there exists no scientific data so far that it inhibits the implantation of an already fertilized egg.
Christian and christopher,
Wouldn’t you say that all three people deserve respect?
1. If someone has truly gave it their best effort to learn
2. they have the courage of their convictions and try to live out their worldview
Isn’t that respectable?
Kenneth, sure it’s usually respectable. However, I’m not going to afford everyone the same level or respect just because they gave their best effort and are living out their convictions. What if their convictions are that their life doesn’t matter and they’re going to watch sitcoms and play video games all day. Do I give them the same level of respect as someone who devotes themselves to learning and making the world a better place? I’m not saying that I don’t treat one as human or I spit on them when I see them or anything. I’m just saying that there are certain beliefs and convictions I hold more respect for than others. It’s not all about how sincere the person is. I don’t respect Timothy McVeigh just because he was sincere and lived out his convictions.
Comrade, is this what you are talking about:
Please note the language. “It is also possible…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?_r=0
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/22/172595689/morning-after-pills-dont-cause-abortion-studies-say
The labels are old. The science does not support their assertions.
Comrade,
My only thought here is women (and couples) whose conscience may be bothered by this implantation business would be best served consulting their medical professional. Thanks for those links.
Peace.
Christian,
Good point. On a totally different note, does anyone else think that Bran is going to end up taking over the dragons?!? I’ve been trying to figure out what the hell his role in this whole thing will be. I think he will end up marrying Danny and having total control over hee dragons. Also, blank blank is going to come back to life as some kind of bad ass….
Ha! Don’t make me censor your comments, Kenneth! 😉
I agree, I think it’s hard to make the case that Plan B and BC pills are abortifacients (IUDs can be though). Ironically, I came to this conclusion after studying NFP and the menstrual cycle. Why other Catholics haven’t reached this conclusion I have no idea. I cringe when I hear Catholics use bad science to make the case against contraception. You have a better chance at convincing people based on Natural Law than making up scientific “facts”. I had an NFP teacher tell me that “condoms work well when a woman is not in her ovulation phase, but we find it doesn’t work so well during the fertile phase!” I practically had a massive sore on my tongue from biting it! How does that even make sense?! Does a woman’s fertile mucus eat away at latex? It was mind boggling that she even said that……and she and her husband were MDs. .
Kenneth,
That appears on topic to me.
To go off topic (or to bring it back to Jason’s point in the podcast), my point about the irony of the RCC being the “odd man out” in this contraception discussion is still curious to (all about) me. The argument that everyone was anti birth control until 1930s and the RCC is the only one retaining that may make sense from your three legged stool, but that tradition elevated argument is what I encountered with young earth scientists in my own communion (I.e. the Church has long held the ordinary length for Genesis days, an old earther like me is the theological novum in the discussion). Hans-Georg Gadamer has a fantastic essay about tradition that I’m sure google could help me find again, the point was we can’t just accept new ideas always as better because they are new, rather we must weigh the traditional (like the Christian view of Man) vs the new (say new age, or the spirit of the age) using our reason, and make a judgment according on which is better.
But yeah, back to blank of blanks, guys. Take care.
Re: Gadamer:
Kenneth, I hate to do this (well, not really), but you said Protestantism is “here today, gone tomorrow”.
I hate to break it to you, but that dooms your religion, the Muslims, Jews, Mormons, everyone. If you and your caller type clan were paying attention to the old blogger and the idea of the spirituality of the Church, you’d understand that all that is visible now is fleeting. We await the new heavens and new earth Kenneth. It may assuage your decision to enter communion with the RCC in believing you left a dying tradition. But that’s like the guy on the death star telling Vader he’s has a sad devotion to an ancient and dying religion, only for Governor Tarkin to step in and stop him from using the force strangle hold. Wake up out of our ” RCC only” paradigm and try imbimbing something useful that isn’t in your tradition. You’re young, so we get that when we were your age, that’s typical=”eat up everything in your new found world and parrot it like no one has ever heard all this stuff before. ” Game of thrones may be a good intro to things outside your comfort zone, to me, I could never get into it. For reasons I’d be happy to go into, but my rant is over. Protestantism may die, but who cares? Jesus lives, for f**k sake. Deal with that, atheist readers of this blog. Please don’t quote Dawkins to me again. Lates.
Oh, and I know you are a creedcodeculter, Kenneth, and you love to stump for your church. If I wanted to fight you over that, I would do so at Jason’s other blog. Instead, my point only was defend against your assertion that protestantism is dying. Provide some proof, and until then, enjoy writing to impugn what I believe if it makes you feel better. It has no effect on me.
Next.
AB,
Wtf with the “you are so young” thing. How old are you guys?!?
I didn’t mean protestants in general are here today and gone tomorrow…. just most of their ideas. I’m sure there will always be a group identifying themselves as “protestant”, but I doubt that in another 300 years those people will think anything like you. Look at how the Reformed tradition has gone from being anti music and dancing, to 2kingdom light them if you’ve got them. Look how the FV and “new perspective on paul” begin to twist and distort long held core principles. Without an infallible magesterium, Christianity becomes a product of society and culture. Which to me, makes it less relevant.
Kenneth,
33 in a few weeks.
If you don’t realize I can turn just about any, if not every argument you use against me, on you, then you haven’t been doing this discussion studf long enough yet.
I learned that from the atheists.
Don’t skip all your classes is all I ask, bud. Take care of yourself.
I suppose an extremely simplistic theological way of approaching this is to start with the idea that God initiates and animates life and He uses people to co-create life. God likes life. So, in a pure caricature of what life could/should look like where all people are in agreement that God likes life and a lot of it, sex would be the means in which there were lots of new lives from people co-creating. In this ideal, the RCC Church (and the whole Christian Church until the early 1900s) seems to be lined up correctly – that anything a person would choose to do to interrupt the natural course of life begetting life would be sinful.
Since we don’t live in the ideal and we have to consider all the other mitigating factors we have in a modern world, it seems logical that there would be much discussion, some push back, and individuals and couples making different choices. I do admire the families that I know that have thrown caution to the wind and, with much personal sacrifice, have raised huge families, and I often, anecdotally, perceive their families to be generally healthier in that their kids tend to whine less, understand teamwork more and often seem more balanced emotionally than those families with controlled numbers of kids. We did not throw caution to the wind and I do wonder at times the people we have missed out on (kids we chose not to have).
I like being in a church (RCC convert) that doesn’t change it’s mind very often – it provides a sense of stability even when I may be in disagreement on points. I guess my personal stance (which could easily be argued to be wrong) is to admire the ideal while understanding the perspective of the many different subsets that do not align with the ideal. I like the idea of just leaving life alone – once it’s started, leave it alone until it’s natural end, to include letting criminals die naturally. I have less of an ethical problem of preventing life from starting but I respect the historicity of the RCC’s teachings on that.
This post is useless, I know, to those of you that don’t start from the starting point of God. I can’t reasonably come up with anything written from agnostic perspective because I’ve never been able to place my mind there. I also am wary of wading into any type of discussion full of such intellects – I’m not sure a 40something female should be on a board with a bunch of 20-30something men who clearly study theology and study it often …. I’m way out of my league!
I did enjoy the podcast, per usual, and found the animal sex point interesting. I do think the Pope is doing a good job at trying to get RCs and others to understand the SPIRIT of the many RC Laws instead of just the LETTER of the Laws. Love remains the most important thing and he tries his best to get people to understand that more than quibbling about less important matters.
I start getting antsy near the end of the week and am happy to wake up Mondays to see a new podcast loading. Looking forward to when you can jump to two a week although I know that’s probably a huge workload for you both. Sorry for the length of this.
Christian, Kenneth, and Andrew,
Thanks for your good thoughts and questions. I’m checking in here late tonight (it’s after 11 pm, Eastern time zone), and morning comes early, so I’ll have to answer each of you at some point, hopefully, tomorrow. I look forward to doing so!
Greg,
I’ll respond to your question about the Indiana law tomorrow too. I’ve been hearing wildly conflicting things about the law itself, which leaves me… well… conflicted! More thoughts tomorrow.
“I also am wary of wading into any type of discussion full of such intellects – I’m not sure a 40something female should be on a board with a bunch of 20-30something men who clearly study theology and study it often …. I’m way out of my league!”
At least one of us is somewhat older than that and no recent theology study. There is a lot to be said for putting life experience up against theology (and various other olgy’s) and paying attention to what works and what does not. There are enough variations and massive disagreements on theology amongst the learned that there is very little likelihood that any theologian holds clear ground on truth (even within the framework of a particular belief structure).
Wade in, contribute what you have to contribute and always be willing to learn if someone has a good point to make and don’t be too wary. From what I’ve seen so far the kids in this playground seem to play fairly nicely.
Bob
Finally finished listening to the podcast. I don’t know how some of you guys finish listening to it so quickly.
Anyway, couple things to clarify:
1. junk mail – despite how much we hate them, it’s actually the reason why the postal service is still around. circulation mailers keep them in business. however, apparently you can fill out some forms to opt out of most of them.
2. costco magazine & phone book – again, it actually doesn’t cost costco or your local phone company any money and actually both are revenue generators for them. notice how shit the content is in the costco magazine (to the extent that we pretty much don’t read them) (read: cheap to produce) and how much advertising there is? that’s why.
3. uci’s greek system isn’t as firmly entrenched as most older schools and while i never rushed myself i do know several non-white guys (shocking) who did. tbh, if i were advising my non-existent kid, i would tell him not to rush for all the reasons that you guys discussed.
Bob,
Ditto.
As for ages, there are no old or young in the new heavens and new earth
http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/gal+3%3A28/
Ok, he didn’t say that. But all are one in Christ Jesus.
Christopher, no need to respond to what I write. I’ll just quote scripture (sola Scriptura, yo!) or post silly youtube links. I’m settled in my beliefs and quite happy. Respond as led, friend.
Peace.
@internet
Back to sex, if there’s some young marrieds I’m thinking 22 and they want to use condoms, for goodness sakes, let them have fun.
The RCC is such a killjoy.
Who is next?
http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/eccl+9%3A9/
Christian,
I agree with you that sincerity of belief, and/or the honesty of someone’s research into his/her faith(s), should not be the *only* factor(s) taken into account when we talk about “respect.” The content of that belief or faith also matters. That’s why I would have at least *some* lesser amount of respect for the sincere Muslim who read the Koran, concluded that it teaches the killing of infidels, and then actually decided to *live out* that teaching by killing non-Muslims.
Regardless of the sincerity of said Muslim, I simply can’t respect the conviction that non-Muslims should be killed, purely for being Muslims, and while, in a certain sense, I can respect the fact that some Muslims sincerely reach that conclusion, through research, I definitely can’t say that I respect them on the same level that I respect, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.
I noticed, in your reply to me, that you said that you have more respect for the Catholic who actually thinks through his/her faith, rather than just accepting it without thinking about it. However, doesn’t that position directly contradict what you said earlier– that you have more respect for the Catholic who just says that certain Church teachings don’t make sense but yet accepts those teachings, because he/she is Catholic?
I’m somewhere in between those two kinds of Catholics. I believe that the Church is what she claims to be (Christ’s Church, founded by Him), and I believe that her teaching authority does come from Christ, and therefore, I *don’t* literally think through *every* single teaching of the Church before I decide if I will accept it. If I did, that would be a very non-Catholic, somewhat Protestant, way of being Catholic! 🙂 However, I *did* have to think through and research *certain* teachings before I could believe that they were in accord with Biblical teaching, and I definitely had to think through the Church’s claims about her origin and authority before coming to accept those claims.
Sorry for typos, Christian. I meant to say that I can’t respect the conviction that non-Muslims should be killed, purely for being non-Muslims. I can respect the *sincerity of the research* that brings certain Muslims to that conviction, but I can’t respect the conviction itself, because, well, it’s evil.
Christopher,
However, doesn’t that position directly contradict what you said earlier
I was attempting to contrast the person who just believes everything because they are Catholic with the person who actually thinks about things and may not agree but accepts them. (I realize there is a third group of people who believe all the Catholic teachings after researching them, but I didn’t mean for those people to be a part of my comparison.)
Besides, if you’re looking for me contradicting myself, you’re probably going to be kept very busy. Make a drinking game out of it. Like we’ve said before, we don’t try to be polemical.
Kenneth,
I answered your question about respect for peoples’ differing convictions in my two above replies to Christian. If you want or need any more clarification, let me know.
I hear you, Christian. I wasn’t really looking for contradictions.:-) I just saw something that appeared to be contradictory, so I wanted to make sure that I understood what you meant.
A drinking game based on the podcast– now there’s an idea, hehe! I’ll have to do some “research” into that soon! 🙂
Andrew,
Thanks for the tip about highlighting relevant portions of articles, rather than simply providing links. I do appreciate that (some) people are wary of, or reluctant about, clicking on even potentially relevant links in comboxes.
With most (not all) of the links I’ve provided in this particular thread, I believe that the “cases” made therein are cumulative cases– based on the totality of all of the information in each piece. For example, I linked to the “Catholic Sistas” blog post, in which many different Catholic women state their reasons for supporting the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception. To try to highlight relevant portions of that post would be challenging, because the point of the post is read all of the thoughts shared, rather than just a few of them.
I do get your point though and thank you for it. I’ll try to share the most relevant portions from pieces more often and not *always* just link to the pieces!
Greg,
About the Indiana law, I’m a bit unsure if you meant to ask me about it, or if that was a mistake, because you also alluded to something about “market forces,” in addressing what Kenneth and I supposedly believe, and I haven’t been a part of any discussion here about the market at all.
I will say that I don’t agree, at all, with the *practice* of businesses refusing to serve people due to their race, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Such a practice is not only non-Christian. It is deeply anti-Christian.
I do strongly think that Christian business owners should not have to participate in activities which their faith teaches are sinful. When the owners of “Memories Pizza” in Indiana say that they would serve any homosexual person who wants to eat in their restaurant, I agree with them and support them. I also respect their right to not cater a homosexual wedding party, because to do so would be to violate their religious convictions regarding Christians participating in sin. (Religious convictions for which they are now receiving death threats– so much for tolerance, it seems!)
Christian,
You asked me a question about the statement regarding “babies and bonding” in the Catholic Sistas blog post. This is probably, in part, a “Catholic lingo” issue.
As I understand it, the bonding part, in Catholic teaching, definitely includes physical pleasure. “Humanae Vitae” speaks about the unitive *and* the procreative aspects of sexual intercourse in marriage, and HV teaches that they should not be deliberately separated in a way that would fundamentally change the nature of the natural act, as God has given it to us. In Catholic teaching, part of the “unitive” aspect is the physical and emotional pleasure shared by married couples in intercourse. God didn’t create it to feel so good arbitrarily! I think it’s quite likely that He knew if He *didn’t* make it feel so good, there would be many fewer babies in the world! 🙂
Christopher,
ya, reading back my comment, I combined two thoughts into one sentence without doing a good job of delineating them.
Couple things here, you are surely right to point out the hypocrisy of the people who are threatening the owners of Memories Pizza and they have no place in civilised discourse. The problem is, what if my religious beliefs forbid the marriage of interracial couples and therefore this law gives me the “right” to not serve a interracial wedding party, would you be as accepting of my beliefs?
Or put another way, with all the uproar of conservatives proclaiming that Sharia law is just around the corner in America, doesn’t this Indiana law actually help us down that path? Will you respect my right as a Muslim to forbid my daughter or wife to drive by themselves or to appear in public uncovered?
We do agree that this law is very unchristian.
Andrew,
On the Catholic Church being a “killjoy”– not at all! 🙂 Any man who has ever used condoms during sex knows that they diminish the pleasure of it. In addition to being an abortifacient, in at least some forms, the Pill can also diminish women’s enjoyment of sex, from some accounts that I’ve heard.
It’s one of the strange ironies of the late-20th/early-21st century that it takes a celibate Pope to basically say, as against the secular world and even against most other Christian groups, “Hey, married couples! If and when you’re going to “do it,” do it as God gave it to us! Stop messing with sexual intercourse in ways that actually make it *less* pleasurable! We really don’t know better than He does!” 🙂
Greg,
As a Christian, I believe that a business owner who refuses to serve an interracial couple is deeply wrong. I say the same for one refusing to serve a homosexual couple.
If a business owner holds to a religious faith in which doing either or both of the above is taught to be *sinful* though, as much as I vehemently disagree with that teaching, I have to say, this is still the USA, and we do still *claim* to protect one’s freedom of religion. I don’t see how that protection ends with the founding and daily operation of a business.
If a particular Muslim is so convinced about the importance of women wearing the hijab that he actually doesn’t even want to serve a woman who is *not* wearing a hijab, I do believe that his conscience should be protected in this country under freedom of religion. I also believe that, at least in a free (non-radical Muslim) country, he will probably soon go out of business!
Chris,
The across the board ban on all contraception is in reality followed by so few married Catholics that it really isn’t viewed as a serious position to hold, IMHO. Jason cries foul via the democracy fallacy, i say the RCC doesn’t see the writing on the wall. The ones who suffer are the ones Jason said he wants to buy a lunch for. Unnecessary burdening the faithful’s conscience with some arbitrary rule. Oh well, being a ‘separated brother’ is truly where it’s at. You’ll just have to trust my experience in this regard, of course that’s not normative. Hence Sola Scriptura, the only way to go. Cheers.
PS my only hope is Frank doesnt stick Jason with the tab like B16 was known to do:
If you listen to the last few minutes of this podcast
http://reformedforum.org/ctc378/
Hear Dr. Carl Trueman explain how Luther wrote to his friend, on his friend’s wedding night, “I will be enjoying making love to my wife at the same time you are to yours – ha ha”.
Check it out. Sex is for more than just babies. Unitive and bonding takes places with condoms, speak truth to power you Catholics and tell Frank who the boss is in your bedroom.
Who’s next?
Start at the 45 minute mark if interested in hearing Luthers thoughts on making love to his wife.
Andrew Buckingham,
While you’re here, and before you start insisting that no one respond to you or mind your comments….
Sorry for the typos and poor formatting. Otw to work so typing on the fly. We got side tracked by global warming and “over population” (which should have all the credibility of an evangelical picking a date for the rapture at this point with so many failed predictions) but so far as I can see the arguments pro contraception are completely untouched. Perhaps you find the idea distasteful, but there has been no meaningful refutation.
If I may, just one more insulant and audacious comment. People have been saying that the RCC hasn’t seen the “writing on the wall” for thousands of years. They are all now in their graves, most of their ideas and personal beliefs dead with them. Here today…… gone tomorrow.
Kenneth,
The ability to build an argument does not make the truth of an idea any more or less truthful. Truth remains truth regardless of a human’s ability to construct an argument about said truth.
What I’ve said in this thread is plain and doesn’t require me calling things in, such as “natural law theory.” The Roman Catholic Church is the only denomination I am aware of that bans all form of artificial contraception. Embrace that irony, because it’s an area that those outside of your cirlces look on and laugh at. Or like to say things like “they believe in NFP but not barrier mehtods, why is that?”
You like to argue – I get that. I know quite a few people who like to do that in real life, so I’ve encountered this kind of thing before. You wanted to know how the world would be (morally) worse off if everyone accepted your (sexual) paradigm, and people answered the response, that’s where this all lies. The world would be worse off because the traditions of men are elevated to the status of those things which bind the conscience, something as a protestant I will never accept (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 3. What is the Word of God?
A. The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.
You seem to me to want to change the world, one blog comment at a time, and power to you. But so far, you are skipping classes, posting to me what seems to be waaaayyy too many comments on this comment section, and demanding everyone answer your arguments, when all we are doing is chatting. There’s no reason to be upset. I didn’t say that the RCC will die and the writing is on the wall for your system, I simply said your church’s contraception stance is backwards, and Jason agrees (in a combox, I could find it, he believes the RCC will lose credibility due to their stance on this issue, if I’m wrong, he can correct me, I can use control “F” to find it pretty quick). Write a response to me or not, I don’t care. I’m just talking. You were the one who said we are “here today, gone tomorrow.” Who’s the hand waver wishful thinker? If anything, other religions are set to grow faster than our shared christian religion. There’s simply nothing to be upset about, just enjoy these chats and share your convictions, and as I stated from the beginning, accept the irony that your church is the odd man out here, and maybe wonder why that is. Take care.
Kenneth, this was the comment by Jason I was referring to above:
Kenneth, and lastly, I wouldn’t be a protestant if I didn’t give you a verse, as my sign off for today. Don’t worry about Protestantism, Catholicism, or any thought system being here today, gone tomorrow, because of course they are. It all is, bud, embrace that, and read The Word of God when your doubts plague you:
Now, who else likes to golf around these interwebs, yo?
Yeah, Christopher, we tried letting the free market work out bigotry on its own. It didn’t. There were entire communities where black people would not be served. They would have to enter a separate entrance, get their orders to go and leave without inconveniencing the good Christian white people who wanted to dine without having to see them.
There were communities where you could not find housing as a minority. Or where you were physically in danger from the good Christian folks who would have no thoughts lynching you and selling off souvenirs of your body parts and then go home, get dressed in their Sunday finest and head off to church.
And God help you if you actually married a member of a different race.
There were communities where you could not get emergency medical treatment as a black person because the white hospital would refuse to treat you.
And underneath all of it was a theology that saw the mingling of the races as sinful.
And on top of all that, the communities erected a legal framework to keep the power structures in place to ensure that government would support and defend their right to discriminate.
It took the Federal government’s intervention to destroy that noxious system.
So, yes, we tried letting the free market work it out. It failed.
And even in this case where the pizzeria supposedly had to close its doors due to the backlash, they received over $500,000 in donations from likeminded folks. Their shop will reopen and probably have more business than they know what to do with from good Christian men and women.
Also, as a general rule of thumb, I’m not going to take advice on my marriage and sexuality from men under a vow of celibacy. 🙂
Andrew,
All of the RCS and EO in the world are against contraception. All of the Muslim schools of jurisprudence are against contraception. That’s roughly 4 billion people in the world whom, if they accepted their own religions teaching, would be against contraception. Odd man out? Hardly.
As a side note, what happens when the muslims, who are having 7 children per family on average, become the majority in democratic societies throughout europe? The west is going to contracept and abort it’s way out of existence.
Kenneth,
The West hasn’t fully jumped on board with VHEM as far as I know:
I’ll say it again – all that we see is fleeting, I don’t care who produces more babies and has more population. Come back and read the old blogger. As the confessional outhousers (zrim) say, “it’s lonely over here.”
Peace.
Andrew,
Meh, I’m bored with Daryl and the whole dysfunctional family. Although watching Erik Charter explode on everyone, threaten to sue even more people, and grandstand his way out was interesting reading. He even insulted DG which I was suprise at.
Kenneth,
Your call, of course. Blogs are a waste of time anyway. What with the weather this nice in Cali, we should all be golfing, right?
And here’s me doing that protestant thang again, yo:
Andrew,
Have you ever played clash of clans? Now that is a solid way to pass the time.
https://youtu.be/GC2qk2X3fKA
Kenneth,
No, my brother likes it though.
I found something for you too, enjoy:
Funny Video, KW! Revenge is a dish best served cold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTl-2YzZMI
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/has-global-warming-paused
Seems relevant, though I doubt it will change any minds.
Every world religion admonishes its members to breed without ceasing. More births means more adherents to make war with those OTHER people and their weird beliefs! And every society that gains a prosperous, educated middle class reviews this standard and chooses to disagree.
I am making gross generalizations but, just like exclusivity, breeding seems to be part of every big religion. I’ve heard from Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, probably even Animists believe that Their Way Is the Only Way (exclusivity) and We Must Produce All the Children We Can (breeding for the purposes of religious dominance).
Both are simple laws that complicate our lives. People who cannot manage their lives are more dependent on the church. Church is control-freaky like that.
Andrew,
I actually left the Catholic Church and was a “separated brother” for several years. I loved it. I was a very joyous Reformational Protestant– *until* I found out that certain major teachings which were being presented to me as “the clear teaching of Scripture” had not even held by the men who had been discipled by Christ’s original disciples. That pesky early (and later!) Church! 🙂
Speaking of which, you mention the Catholic Church’s teaching against artificial contraception as being an “arbitrary rule.” If your view is, indeed, accurate, then it seems strange that this “arbitrary rule” was held to be Scriptural by all Protestant denominations from the 1520s until 1930.
Over 400 years. That’s a long time for all Protestant churches to be convinced that Scripture clearly teaches the sinfulness of artificial contraception, only to apparently “discover,” in the last 80 years, that all of that time, they were actually just still in bondage to some “arbitrary rule” of the Catholic Church! (Read Luther and Calvin on artificial contraception. They strongly believed that Scripture teaches against it.)
comradedread,
How does anything that I’ve written in this thread constitute an argument for letting the “free market” work out “bigotry” on its own?
Yes, I believe that business owners who hold to a religious faith should be allowed to live out that faith in the operation of their businesses. What is the alternative? Freedom of religion, unless one has a business?
Seriously, in your view, does religious freedom suddenly end, in one’s life, when one starts a small business? Should people of various religious faiths be forced to sin against the teachings of their faiths, simply because they own and operate businesses? Should Jewish delis and restaurants be forced to go non-kosher, simply because many consumers like to eat non-kosher meat?
As a Christian, if I owned a bakery or a wedding-planning business, I could not, in good conscience, provide a cake, or wedding-planning services for a “gay wedding.” However, it’s not because I’m a bigot. It’s because if I’m going to claim to be a Christian, I want to actually follow the historic teachings of Christianity!
According to the teaching of historic Judeo-Christianity, from the time of the Old Testament to now, the active living out of homosexual desire is intrinsically sinful. This teaching has only even *begun* to be questioned by certain theologians in the West in the lat 30 years.
Jesus never mentions homosexuality in the New Testament, because He was a Jew, and Jewish teaching on the sinfulness of active homosexuality was/is very clear. Jesus never changed that teaching. He *did* say, “Those without sin cast the first stone,” thereby effectively saying that stoning for sins against Jewish law, among believers, was not going to be the way of His followers, but He never changed the Jewish teaching on homosexuality.
What, then, are Christian business owners to do, when they are asked to violate teachings of their faith by people who could easily go to *other* business owners, who could serve them with no violation of religious conscience? Why should Christians be forced to participate in sin, because certain homosexual activists want to make a point?
P.S. Sorry for typos. I’m writing in a hurry here, as I have to be somewhere else within minutes! 🙂
cairech,
You write, “People who cannot manage their lives are more dependent on the church.” That’s a stunningly arrogant statement. I write as a former atheist here. (I was stunningly arrogant then too. Mea culpa!)
Christopher,
It’s this kind of nonsense (barrier method is wrong but NFP is ok) that stems from the RCC claiming infallibility for herself. I don’t want to argue with you, we are all entitled to our opinions. If I comment on this webpage again, it will be on podcast 37 thread, because they take this issue up again and advance the ball perhaps. Thanks for your thoughts, grace and peace.
Andrew,
It has nothing to do with the Catholic Church claiming infallibility. NFP respects and conforms to the natural (divine) design of human sexuality, and to the natural, God-given, marital act of sexual intercourse, when intercourse happens. Barrier methods do not respect and conform to that design.
What are barrier methods, if not man’s attempts to tweak (and, ultimately, ignore) God’s design to make marital sexual intimacy “easier” and “more fun” for us? I’ll stick with the historic Christian teaching, on which Catholics and Protestants were united from the Reformation until 1930. Thanks for your thoughts though! Grace and peace!
I agree to disagree.
Ok, Andrew.