# STOP THE PRESS!



## Martinelv

Glory halleluiah!

I?ve just heard that the Catholic Church is ?thinking? about letting Catholics use condoms, or other forms of contraception! This is absolutely fantastic news for two reasons.

Firstly, it will help the poor ravaged AIDS victims of Catholic countries, predominately Africa of course, but also places like Brazil where the number of people with HIV is something like 1.8 million.

And secondly, finally, after years of unyielding dogma, the Catholic Church has followed most other religions by taking a step backwards in the face of common sense. Perhaps they saw all the dying people and AIDS orphans on their jewel-encrusted televisions in the Vatican. Who knows? What joy in seeing the church disregard one of its most treasured ideologies! Sooner or later, hopefully in my lifetime, it will disregard the rest of them that cause harm and suffering to billions of people all over the world. And hopefully I?ll live long enough to see it. Hold on to your hats all you homosexuals, women, in fact, everyone who isn?t religious; I have a suspicion that you might be next!

I hope I live long enough to see the Church take enough steps back and fell over the precipice into oblivion, just like the Church of England is about to do. And then mankind will be able to make its own choices, unfettered by ancient rules and regulations, spite, manipulation, and ostracisation.

Today is a good day.


----------



## Rozanne

New cartoon about the Vatican:

http://www.popetown.com


----------



## jeremy

From what I have read, Africa is not in fact as AIDS ravaged as most people think.

1. To be diagnosed with AIDS in Africa, the individual needs only four clinical symptoms.

Diarrhea
Fever
Persistent Cough
Loss of 10% or more over 2 months

These are all symptoms of many 3rd world country diseases.

2. HIV tests are not required for AIDS diagnosis

3. Cases of tuberculosis, malaria and measles far outnumber the cases of AIDS in Africa

4. According to UN estimates, a Kenyan dies of AIDS every 3 minutes, however there have only been 81,000 odd diagnosed cases since 1981 adn many of these people are alive and well.

Interesting....

Jeremy


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
Thank you Jeremy. You've saved me the trouble of once again bringing _*data*_ into these forums. You know whats funny? I was praying this morning, and I actually started thinking about some points I wanted to make on this very forum regarding the fallacy of blaming the Catholic Church for the AIDS crisis, or even propagating it.



> From what I have read, Africa is not in fact as AIDS ravaged as most people think.
> 
> 1. To be diagnosed with AIDS in Africa, the individual needs only four clinical symptoms.
> 
> Diarrhea
> Fever
> Persistent Cough
> Weighthttp://www.dpselfhelp.com/forum/p ... ply&t=7788 Loss of 10% or more over 2 months


 You are quite correct. There is no quick field test in Africa for HIV. There ARE labs in Cairo, Nigeria, and especially South Africa, but noone has the money. You are eligible for international aid if you fit these symptoms, and so many people in Africa, just as people here in the US, Canada, or Britain do, milk the system. And I dont blame them. The rest of the world uses Africa as an ashtray.



> Cases of tuberculosis, malaria and measles far outnumber the cases of AIDS in Africa


I've also pointed this out in a previous post. 


> According to UN estimates, a Kenyan dies of AIDS every 3 minutes, however there have only been 81,000 odd diagnosed cases since 1981 adn many of these people are alive and well.


I dont follow these statistics, as they are imperfect head counts based on the four above symptoms. Any of the top killers in Africa can cause these four symptoms, so much so that I almost think that we are being intentionally over-generous in our diagnosing of AIDS. It is SO highly politicized, that we tend to use the African people (once again) to further our own political opinions/causes.

Now onto the Vatican: I'm in the "epicenter" of Catholic thought where I attend classes. The encyclical which outlined the Church's position on birth control, Pope Paul the VI's _Humane Vitae_, is so embedded in Catholicism that it was almost declared dogma in the late 60's early 70's. This isnt going to change. Once you begin seperating the purposes of any action from its accidentals (ie, seperating procreation from pleasure), you begin _using_ other people for pleasure. In theory, people are supposed to be able to build lasting relationships and families using sex, not tear down each other's self-esteem or value. Of course, this objectification will lead to worse an worse abuses. People use contraception to stop the possibility of having children. If it fails, this mindset makes abortion a possible way to fix the problem - the antithesis , a mockery, of a true family, or true happiness, which is always bound up in our relationships with other people.

This all being said, the sex act, outside of marriage is not evil. Its illicit. Its a good thing being used in a wrong context. We've already discussed why its bad to use a condom to stop procreation. But is it bad to use a condom solely to stop the spread of a disease? Theologians and cardinals all seem to have varying opinions. I take the "fruit of the poisoned tree" approach. You cant use an evil means to achieve a good end. The above phrase is the phrase the legal system uses to explain why ill-gotten evidence is not allowed in court. I think that by handing out condoms, you just encourage more ritual impregnation and western concupiscience to invade the society. Why cant we ask why abstinence is not a viable alternative? Because we dont want to take responsibility.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## CECIL

Nice. Martin the Church doesn't need to change its policies to stop all of this suffering, all that needs to happen is more people stop listening them


----------



## Homeskooled

In addendum, you are already allowed to use the pill if its intended purpose is not to stop the transmission of life, but rather to treat an organic condition, such as endometriosis, severe acne, and other women's conditions. This is why the same logic is being applied to condoms by some theologians. I'm guessing that condoms will be approved for use for married couples if one of the two is infected with HIV, but this is only my guess. There are some in Rome who still view using a condom in such a manner as "fruit of the poisoned tree". If I was in this situation, I'd probably opt for a third option anyways : Taking Tamoxifen, or Tamiflu, on a daily basis (as well as combining it with another drug, I beleive), acts as a prophylaxis against AIDS. This would also allow the aforesaid couple to have children, provided that the man is the one who is HIV positive (if the mother is positive, the child will be born with AIDS).

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

Yes, OK. Another lengthy diatribe defending the Catholic Church. But it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that your precious ideology is going the same way as the s**t out of my arse.

Now THAT's *data*. I'll send you a photo if you like, just to prove it.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 


> Yes, OK. Another lengthy diatribe defending the Catholic Church. But it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that your precious ideology is going the same way as the s**t out of my arse.
> 
> Now THAT's data. I'll send you a photo if you like, just to prove it.


Sigh. No, its not data. Its just another way to circumvent it. Bravo.



> But it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that your precious ideology is going the same way as the s**t out of my arse.


Its not my ideology, its not my Church. Its God's. The Church isnt a building in Rome, a theology book kept in the Vatican archives, or a diocese in London. The Church is a living, breathing thing, composed of the life of God in human beings around the world. You cant count its numbers, you cant destroy it by tearing down buildings, you cant build it up by creating art, and you certainly cant kill it by changing people's minds. It has existed in the hearts of men since time immemorial, and will continue to do so long after the Vatican is dust. The Vatican is the symbolic, physical reminder of it. Its the physical gateway that tries to express spiritual truth in cumbersome, human words. Sometimes it fails. Sometimes it hits it on the nose. Respect it for what it is - dont hate it for what it isnt. Without the Vatican, God would still do His work. Sometimes he does it in spite of it. Do you think that God waits to make up his mind about condoms until the Church committees decide? Do you think the Catholic Church actually thinks this?

My Church is different from your "Church" Martin. Somewhere in your caricature of the Church, in your uniformed caricature which equates excrement with data, are the seeds of truth. You know some things I know. But you dont understand them. I know so much more about how the Church truly is than you - what it truly says. And you dont care to- it doesnt help along your ideology (or give you an axe to grind) to have a view of the truth. Where you see a Church which demeans women, I see one which empowers them and calls on men to see them as what they truly are - not objects. Read "The Genius of Women" by Pope John Paul II. Where you see a Church trampling on the poor, I see the true financial picture of my diocese and the Vatican, and the Pope's exhortations for churches to sell their ornaments to take care of the poor. Read the Pope's "Sollicitudo Rei Socialis" for the truth .Where you see delusional hope, I see enlightenment. Where you see men as constant reminders of what is wrong with the world, I see them as constant reminders of what is right. Where you see suffering as inevitable, I see it as avoidable. Read Pope John Paul II's "Negotiation". When it is inevitable, you see it as a burden. I see it as a way to get closer to God. Read Thomas Merton and St. John of the Cross. Where you see responsible sex as cumbersome, I see it as freeing. Read "Love and Responsibility" by JPII. Where you see darkness, I see light. The church is much richer in thought and wisdom than your diatribes wish to portray. I posted Meditations I and Meditations II on this site for the express purpose of helping people see what I see. You need peace Martin, very, very badly. Read Meditation II to learn how to pray. Even the sh*t from your arse can be used to fertilize a field.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS- I recommend reading Deus Caritas Est (Latin for God is Love) to anyone who suffers with a guilty consciensce. It is Pope Benedict XVI's first encyclical, and its a very easy, warm read. I'll post a segment of it later. I lent a copy of it to my monk friends. Have a good day, guys. I know I will - its my birthday! <-----Shameless fishing for birthday wishes!


----------



## sebastian

HS & Martin,

I want you two to know that I really enjoy watching you two battle it out on here. You remind me of some sort of comedy duo except that I usually get something useful out of your exchanges as well. I'm also pleased with how you both manage to keep your debate civil, even while you're splashing around in the mud.

I'm not sure why i posted this except that i'm bored out of my mind. Probably the same reason I write to my favourite TV show (which, for all you sebastian trivia buffs out there, is 24) and tell them they're doing a good job.

Anyway, take care all.

s.


----------



## Scattered

24 is utter crap.


----------



## sebastian

Scattered said:


> 24 is utter crap.


No, it's not.


----------



## Martinelv

I'm glad we make you happy Seb. Although we argue constantly, we love each other really.

Incidently, Homeskooled, regarding this contraception thing that you mentioned. Am I reading this right, or are you saying that it is forbidden for a man to needlessly spill his seed, but it's OK for women to mess with their menstrual cycle and destroy their eggs?

*ANOTHER BLAZING TRIUMPH FOR FEMALE RIGHTS BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!*

It's all there in the bible:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

I don't have a caricature of the church. I don't need to. It is a caricature of itself!!


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Martin, 
No, you are not reading this correctly. Women can stop their menstrual cycle if the purpose is to heal, not destroy life. Men can do this too (ie, castration is the treatment for testicular cancer - the purpose of this is to save life, not cause infertility. Infertility is the side effect). The origin of the idea that the sin lies in the spilling of seed lies in the medeival understanding that the embryo of a human being was already fully formed in a man's seed. Thus, spilling a seed was killing a life. The true heart of sexual sin is in its using of people and debasing of ourselves in doing so. Contraception is not a sexual sin, per se, but either a sin of destruction (some contraceptives act as abortifacients) or a sin of selfishness (closing off one of the intended purposes of sexuality for our own gratification).

You really dont get Leviticus. Its genius. Its the only book of the Bible that I find almost flawless - you dont need to take most of the book in context (ie, the book is not symbolic, as is Genesis or Job). Look at your quote. By the way, this is why the Jewish people are so far ahead in the arts and professions (Jewish doctors, musicians, etc...), because while the rest of our ancestors were swinging on trees, they were given divine inspiration regarding medical hygiene. Their women and children had very low rates of death at childbirth. Now lets look at your quote. After a woman gives birth, she must be quarantined for seven days. The cleansing ritual during that time period was to wash herself. These Jewish cleansing rituals (such as washing ones hands before meals) were all prescribed in Leviticus, and either performed at ones home, or in the Temple by a priest. Childbirth is messy. The bodily fluids released all carry any disease the woman might have. By quarantining her and quarantining her from her baby, you are ensuring that she doesnt infect her baby post childbirth. You are ensuring that whoever helps with the delivery of the baby touches noone for 7 days. Do you know why Louis Pasteur realized microbes existed? Because doctors in Paris werent washing their hands inbetween helping deliver babies, and so with blood on their hands from the previous mother, would deliver and infect the next baby. A huge epidemic of infant deaths swept across Paris, and Louis found that by washing one's hands between delivery, one was killing the microbes. By the way, Louis Pasteur said his greatest moments of inspiration came from after he prayed his Rosary. Not that I particularly like the Rosary, but there is a correlation between God and inspiration.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Milan

sebastian said:


> HS & Martin,
> I'm also pleased with how you both manage to keep your debate civil, even while you're splashing around in the mud.


Civil - Marked by refinement in taste and manners.....



Martinelv said:


> But it still doesn't make any difference to the fact that your precious ideology is going the same way as the s**t out of my arse.
> 
> Now THAT's data. I'll send you a photo if you like, just to prove it.


 

Seb, I also enjoy M and HS's debates - very entertaining.

Since pulling away from the Catholic church I'd love to contribute to these religious threads but it would be a waste of time because each individual has their own values and belief systems which they wont compromise but I do relish watching others defending their views.


----------



## Martinelv

> You really dont get Leviticus


You know, I think this is the first time we've ever agreed. But not in the manner that you suggest. I don't 'get' the insanity in it, and how people can possibly believe it.



> Sigh. No, its not data. Its just another way to circumvent it. Bravo.


Now, that is something I do agree with. And I apologise. But you write so goddam much that my brain starts to melt and I have to resort to being peurile. Can't you just summarise it in a few words? For my well-being if nothing else?


----------



## Dreamer

*Yup, I always learn something from these two duking it out, ah and Milan, congratulations to you and your wife on the new baby, and Home, belated birthday.*

But two things that trouble me:

Re:Africa

I Googled for stats on AIDS in Africa. There are so many sites with so many agendas I don't know how to sort out the facts and can't rebut what has been stated.

Firstly, when we say Africa, we are talking about THE massive continent of Africa; Egypt for instance is not Libya is not the Sudan, etc. It is a huge collection of different countries -- many Muslim or of other religions, I think?

I would say though that in those impoverished countries with famine, endless tribal warfare, despair, and yes promiscuity there is an AIDS epidemic. And we know there is no cure for AIDS, and we also know that in these countries few are getting any treatment for any ailment.

One thing is for certain, regardless, abstinence is not something you order upon certain cultures where promiscuity is common, and condoms are at least a suggestion. I see nothing wrong with that. A bandaid for a catastrophe.

It seems like we're underplaying the virulence of AIDS, bottom line, and again, starting to sound like conspiracy theorists about overreporting of AIDS and medical needs in that country.

Then Homeskooled you said:



> In theory, people are supposed to be able to build lasting relationships and families using sex, not tear down each other's self-esteem or value. Of course, this objectification will lead to worse an worse abuses. People use contraception to stop the possibility of having children. If it fails, this mindset makes abortion a possible way to fix the problem - the antithesis , a mockery, of a true family, or true happiness, which is always bound up in our relationships with other people.
> 
> Why cant we ask why abstinence is not a viable alternative? Because we dont want to take responsibility.


This whole paragraph astounds me. Home with all due respect it is in a sense the antithesis of reality, of who we are as human beings.

As I always say, the biological imperative, to procreate is probably one of the strongest urges we have -- I'd say it is. And I think there is some agreement that men are more "promiscuous", and women in the main more "choosy" for reasons I've repeated a thousand times re: mate selection and propagation of the species.

The reason the whole thing is PLEASURABLE is that is the "drive and reward" we get for mating. Can you imagine two human critters having sex that involved no pleasure? Strange coupling of bodies for the Hell of it?

I hate to reduce it to that, but it' true. We are complex animals and those instincts are deep in us. I don't think they can ever change or we would indeed disappear as a species... and please no one use the overpopulation argument. When someone drops a bomb and there are 20 men and 3 women left, we'll need all the sex we can.

*OK, so we deny our sexuality? And I'm being more specific ... a married couple ... who perhaps only wants 2 children ... must ABSTAIN after they've finished with their family? I just want to be sure I understand this?*

Um, I'm 47 and can still get pregnant (to the best of my knowledge). Does this mean at 47 if I'm in a long term monogamous relationship with ONE man that we shouldn't have protected sex -- anything from having my tubes tied so I don't get a stroke from The Pill, what about his getting a vasectomy? Even if this one man is my husband? And no condom is allowed?

My cousin, who is a Fundamentalist Christian got a vasectomy years ago after he and his wife had 3 children. That was all they felt they could afford to raise and raise well. They are STILL married. In their early 60s, and (until a recent serious illness he got), I'm pretty sure they still have sex.

It doesn't matter now, she can't get pregnant.... but is their having sex only for pleasure and comfort NOW something wrong?

Something is funky with my keyboard and I don't want to push my luck, but this logic cannot apply to every human being. It is impossible.

Yes, it is our responsibility to educate our children to, I wish, abstain, yes. But kids have NEVER done that. You do your very best. I think it's most important to raise responsible children who have as much respect for their bodies/sex, etc. and can make healthy informed decisions.

But to withhold birth control in this VERY broad sense ... just doesn't fly with me. It makes no sense. It ignores who we are as sexual beings.

Best,
D

This really surprises me. Maybe I've read this incorrectly.


----------



## Dreamer

The question more clearly:

*A married couple should not use birth control of any kind?* I know there are indeed families I see on the Discovery Health channel who have 16 children and manage to raise them rather well.

But they are a MAJOR exception.

It is so easy for a committed couple for the man to get a vasectomy. I know a lot of guys who've stepped up to the plate on that one.

After they've had their families.

And yes, I am pro-choice, but I do not like even thinking about abortion. It makes me extremely uncomfortable. I think you would want individuals to use ALL means possible to avoid that scenario.

Home, you can argue this, but there are so many unloved, maltreated children in this world. No one thought twice of bringing them into this world "it's the natural thing to do" -- it is.

I know that throughout history, women have tried to protect themselves using primitive methods of birth control such as cow dung! (Used as a cervical cap of sorts).

Please tell me what I'm missing here.

And children aren't for everyone. Does that mean that dedicated loving couples who DO NOT WANT children for various reasons are doing something wrong?

Mystified in the Motor City 8)


----------



## Dreamer

PS, again, lol

People who are educated about sex, who are raised to respect each other, men/women, etc. generally are very responsible about sex. I can speak for my peers.

Also, I would say that ruling out birth control would increase using abortion as an option. I can't recall where, somewhere correct me, but in the former Soviet Union... someone in college did a paper on this .... abortion was THE METHOD of birth control as nothng else was readily available.

We have the means to be responsible about sex. We have the knowledge. If young people are taught these things early on, feel no shame for their sexuality, I believe they will choose wisely, what they should do.

Hmmm..... I wish it were that easy. I feel this is something that should be taught as A FAMILY VALUE.

I would say the use of contraceptives LIMITS abortions.


----------



## Martinelv

> Um, I'm 47 and can still get pregnant


You certainly can my dear. The male sperm count in England has recently gone through the roof. :wink:


----------



## Homeskooled

Okay. Wow. Whowee. I can see the no-contraception stance really bothered you Dreamer. No less than 3 posts in a row....I always know you're bothered when you add a PS, and really bothered when you double post. Three, though.....thats set off my DPSelfHelp debate alarm.

Dreamer, nowhere in my post do I even suggest that pleasure is something not to be used to motivate sex. On the contrary, I'm arguing the point that if we seperate the purpose (procreation) from the accidental (pleasure) that the act becomes unnatural. That works both ways. Sheer copulation without pleasure is just as unnatural as sheer pleasure without copulation. Does this mean you cant control births? No. Natural Family planning, an advanced form of the rhythm method that allows a woman to know her fertile and infertile days using a temperature reading (women's bodies are 2 degrees hotter on days when they are fertile) is not contraception. It doesnt change the act of sex, block a primary purpose or an accidental, never acts as an abortifacient (as the Pill is wont to do), and has no hormonal side effects. Because it leaves the purpose, the pleasure, and the bodies of the spouses in their natural state, there is nothing theologically wrong with it. Rather, it shows a great respect for one's partner, teaches discipline, engenders trust, and promotes healthy sex all while allowing the spacing of children. Any method that uses a greater knowledge of human sexuality to space birth naturally is allowed. The purpose of this theology, referred to in Catholic circles as the "Theology of the Body", is to leave the "biological imperative" intact in its entirety.

And to answer one of your questions, yes, I do think to a degree that a marriage's priorities are misplaced if one is not open to the possibility of ANY children. You are, as I'm sure you know, denying your own biological imperative by doing so. You will have the conscious accidentals (companionship, pleasure), without the subconscious purpose (family, passing on of one's DNA) and the gifts that come along with that purpose - the gifts of life, love, children, and a legacy.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## freesong

I agree with some of what Homeskooled said. The church is not a building or a religion ( man's way to God) it is the body of Christ. The Catholics as well as others have been corrupt in the past and have made mistakes just like all people do. The early church was not Catholic. It was for Jews and then Gentiles and now everyone. It is about love and relationship and the Word of God which is the Bible. He is much bigger than a church or religion. He is GOD!!!! There are many churches which err and the Catholics have not been exempt. No group of people are perfect because only Jesus is. I see much of the Truth coming from the Catholic church where those who study the Bible and its true meaning get enlightenment. But, I see error where there is religious doctrine that does not yet truly understand the full truth of the gospel. Wherever you find "Perfect" love, there you will find Jesus Christ and His Word. We are all just doing the best we can to follow Him if we are truly believers one day at a time. He gives us this day our daily bread. It is offered every day and we can partake or not. The Truth is there for anyone to find, seek, if you should so choose. God bless, freesong


----------



## Dreamer

> And to answer one of your questions, yes, I do think to a degree that a marriage's priorities are misplaced if one is not open to the possibility of ANY children. You are, as I'm sure you know, denying your own biological imperative by doing so. You will have the conscious accidentals (companionship, pleasure), without the subconscious purpose (family, passing on of one's DNA) and the gifts that come along with that purpose - the gifts of life, love, children, and a legacy.


Home, Home, Home! :shock:

For me, this is very painful. I know I'm not alone in this either, but because of so many things in my life, particularly my emotional problems I have had trouble WITH relationships. I have so wanted a child it makes me impossibly sad. But in my life, I have not been in a situation where I could have a child. On medications during a pregnancy, no good, or being very sick for the years when I would have had children. And in a marriage which is troubled (relatively amicable separation) because BOTH of us are troubled.

I would have adopted as well. But there have been a million obstacles in my way.

But I know of other couples who fall in love but who do not want children for many reasons. Can't have children. Or simply feel they will not be good parents. They BOTH agree, yet love EACH OTHER. I have friends who met in their 20s who are in their late 50s now. They need each other, they love each other, and never regret not having children. She had her tubes tied as soon as she was in college -- she came from a seriously abusive home. He simply loved her. It didn't matter to him that she did this.

My "healthiest" friends, yes, they have all that good stuff, and it still isn't easy for them. Marriage, family is extremely difficult. There are "unplanned" pregnancies, complications. Things just don't fall into place, in neat rows.

And why would someone not merely want a loving lifetime companion if both had determined that children were not in the picture?

That is also astonishing. This hits home with me most as I really did want to have children very much, and it just wasn't going to happen.

Also, yes, I see the positive aspects of a couple respecting each other by say working diligently with the rhythm method, but Home, it doesn't always work. It just doesn't. And bottom line, as a woman, who's talked with a lot of women friends, women are the one's who get saddled with this responsibility -- always. No matter what, a woman must care for her own body. A man can be loving and helpful, or he can be a bastard, but in terms of being diligent about pregnancy, the ultimate responsibility falls on the woman.

Who said, "It is a wise child that knows its own father." This is what men are afraid of. I think this is where some of the oppression of women comes from. The need to control one's "property" to insure one's MALE genetic heritage. Nothing wrong with it, it is in our NATURE.

And I know what it feels like, and I think you do to, to be in a home where there is no love (or you have mentioned very difficult times at home that I can't imagine putting up with -- your parents not being supportive when you've been ill, etc.)

I know what it feels like to not have been wanted, even though I was born into wealth. I got every material thing, great education, travel, culture, and no love. None. I'm not saying I don't want to be here, but it has been a life of pain. I cannot say, to this day, that I love either of my parents, both long deceased.

*The biological imperative is incredibly strong. Loving someone, marrying someone, doesn't just have to be to have a family though either. That is the astonishing statement, that THAT is somehow unnatural. And then we get back into arguments about gay couples who raise children better than heterosexual couples, etc., etc., etc. I hope one day to remarry. I don't want to be alone when I'm older. I don't like being alone now.*

Yes, by now I know many friends with children, some of whom have been married more than once and have stepchildren -- that is a HUGE challenge. Things don't always work out. Children can be born terribly sick and, seriously, that can destroy a marriage.

Ideally, ideally .... I hear what you're saying. I can agree in a world that is essentially Utopia, but this is far from Utopia.

I'm not angry. I'm ... so surprised. And this is painful for me.
And I do feel that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is noone's business, unless someone is getting hurt ... in any number of ways.

We all have our own ways of living and loving. One can have love without children. I feel for me this is lacking. But many others are doing just fine, simply as a couple.

What you've said hurts. And I know that isn't your intent. But ... I don't know, it doesn't make sense. Strange thing ... why didn't Christ have children? (No, this isn't a Da Vinci Code question 8) ) I know we are "children of God", but why not set an example as a real life human father? This is the first time that thought occurred to me.

And I know some of the reasons. I think.

Too much again for the hour! Time for bed.
D


----------



## Dreamer

Home said:


> I do think to a degree that a marriage's priorities are misplaced if one is not open to the possibility of ANY children.


YIPES. *Misplaced?*

So if a couple doesn't plan to have children, they shouldn't marry?


----------



## Martinelv

Oh the glory of it !!! The majesty !! The love.....oh, it makes me want to believe so much. Ignore all the nasty stuff (78.3%) and take it in *HISTORICAL CONTEXT*, and just pick out the nice bits!

MT 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works. He also wrote the book; 'How to annoy and alienate people', available at all good book shops.

EZ 23:25, 47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.

PS 137:9 Happy will be the man who dashes your little ones against the stones.

EZ 23:34 "You shall ... pluck out your hair, and tear your breasts."

EZ 9:4-6 The *Lord *commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...." Is that all? What about dogs?

IS 14:21-22 "Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers." :shock: Run for the hills everyone!!!!

JG 21:10-12 "... Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." They do so and* find four hundred young virgins whom they bring back for their own use. * *RESULT!!!!*


----------



## widescreened

I think someone should lock this topic.It will only go on and on and on.I will add my bit thou (pardon the irony).

1.Be careful of surrendering yourself to a belief system when you are undergoing a crisis.It is the ultimate cop out and ducking away from taking personal responsibility.You can justify any kind of behaviour and develop a new way of running away from yourself and life by doing this.

2.Deduce,be critical,use your own judgement ALWAYS.This is not a sin,it is your right as a rational individual.

3,4 and 5 were to follow,but i just cant be arsed writing them,this section is the dark side of the moon.


----------



## Dreamer

Widescreened,
Interesting points, but I disagree this topic should be locked. Homeskooled is able to deal with Martin, lol.

I am curious about this. Very. And it is a distraction from talking about DP. If I get the NAMI Convention going for 2007, I think I will walk away from all of this, yes. But I don't mind discussing these issues.

As long as no one gets vicious there is no reason to lock the topic.

Home, I'm quite interested in your response however.

Also, I am aware of taking the Bible in historical context. One thing Martin, you are siting things here from the Old Testament which I know Jews do not all take at face value. And many Christians do not take either the Old or New Testament wholly at face value.

But I agree, taking this to the extreme, not seeing MESSAGES, parables, morality tales in it (which I see instead stories of real people, save the more historical portions of the OT -- Exodus) is not that constructive either. I do believe in the 10 Commandments. They make perfect sense to me. I think I've said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" means the God of fame, wealth, pride, etc. I can take that Commandment in my own way.

And again, myths, parables are not new in any culture. It is troubling though,the influence of both Islam and Christianity who are battling it out.

As I said though, as a woman, these comments only hurt me. I have been fortunate that no one has stuffed this down my throat. Freedom of religion. Etc.

No need to lock this topic, especially as I'm waiting for Home's response! Don't do it! :shock:

D


----------



## Dreamer

Oh, I forgot one other thing which I think contributes to men being overly controlling of "their women". And where certain religions are very unforgiving in terms of female sexuality and independence.

Even if we consider "The Rhythm Method" -- sperm can live for I believe -- correct me -- upwards of five days inside the woman's body -- those bloody tough sperm. 8) Women can also get pregnant DURING their period because of this. We are the only mammals (the females) who are able to mate at any time -- or rather we are open to having sex at any time. In other words, there isn't a window of mating opportunity as with other mammals who "go into heat" etc., and can't get pregnant at other times.

And a woman's body, is never 100% predictable. In looking strictly at NATURE -- why would this be so?

The only thing I'm jealous of men for is that they can have babies, or NOT have babies whenever they want.

I perhaps have a few good eggs left at 47, but it's doubtful. A man can father children far into his older years. Far beyond the years a woman can have children. Why?

Men can have more than one family. A first, a second, a third, or he can inseminate (sorry Sebastian, the dating thing again, lol) as many women as he pleases -- passing on his genetic legacy all over the place --

WHICH HE IS MEANT TO DO. Again, as I've said (from anthro class),

1. If you have 10 women and 1 man, you can have 10 babies after 9 months
2. If you have 10 MEN and 1 WOMAN, you only get ONE baby after 9 months.

Not cost effective, lol. A waste, survival wise, of 9 months. And not good for survival. This I'm certain is the root of polygamy, and promiscuity, etc. It is so simple.

Why do we always say, "Women and children first! Off the Titanic!" Because to a degree, we don't need EXTRA men, we NEED the women and a few good men 8) to survive.

So how does this NATURAL feature of mating fit in as well.

Sorry to drive you crazy Home, but this is what I see as in conflict with Christian thought on reproduction, AND what I see as a logical source for the oppression, segregation, control of women. This is also seen in the animal world.

I saw a PBS special on baboons? The "alpha" baboon in a group was ousted by a stronger baboon (may have been from another tribe). That new alpha killed that baboon's mate's baby (or babies? -- sorry forgot). In other words, he destroyed the genetic heritage of the former male, and then awaited the female's readiness to mate with HIM. But he killed the baby or babies she produced with the "inferior -- in his mindset" baboon.

He was also like a tyrant. Threatening and attacking those who tried to stop him. Primitive behavior that reminds me of our world today.

Simple again. Survival. Preservation of genetic heritage. Survival of the fittest, strongest, etc. And the women and the weak are at the mercy of the alpha male.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It just IS. But it is reflected in society, and I believe in religons, not just Christianity. It reflects how men view women, how they REALLY see women (as "primitive" males -- in the most basic "primitive brain" which is full of instinct, what drives us).

Yes, in theory as humans we can transcend this -- with some difficulty. But in many different ways. I don't think there is any RIGHT way to transcend this.

Does this make sense?

This is one reason men are always carrying on and fighting all the time, over territory and women, lol. Seriously.

And why women are fighting for their rights on various levels.

Not all men want the same things, neither do women, we are all individuals, but bottom line it still comes down to what we are in our deepest makeup.

Peace,
D


----------



## Martinelv

> Homeskooled is able to deal with Martin


What's that supposed to mean, woman!!!! Eh? Eh? 8)

Anyway, both Homeskooled and myself are moderators, so if there's any locking to be done, either of us would do it. Or the other moderators, who I DARE! :lol:


----------



## sebastian

Sorry to interrupt again...i just wasn't sure where to post this and didn't want to start a new thread just for this.

Did any of you catch the "Question of God Pt. 2" on PBS last night? It studied both the atheistic beliefs of Freud and the spiritual beliefs of C.S. Lewis while an eclectic blend of talking heads argued the merits of one belief system over another while throwing in their own personal experiences. Great show. I'd actually gotten a nice massage last night and was going to turn in early but after watching the first five minutes, i was hooked and stayed up later than i should have.

In any case, 'twas a good program, as are most things on PBS. Just wanted to mention it. Please resume jousting.

s.


----------



## Homeskooled

> Homeskooled is able to deal with Martin
> 
> What's that supposed to mean, woman!!!! Eh? Eh?


It means I'm the alpha baboon, okay? So stop taking this so personally - its just my_ biological imperative _to be the dominant debater! :twisted:

Okay, first of all Dreamer, I apologize for answering your question in such a theologically clinically sense....I certainly didnt mean to hurt you. Please graciously accept my apology. The truth is, I sensed that this question was structured around your own frustrations with not being able to have or take care of children, and I should have built upon that.

You decided to abstain from having children for some excellent reasons. You were probably afraid that they would inherit DP. You were certainly afraid of how your sickness would affect their upbringing, and its a valid concern that meds could affect their development. But I cant help but think that it would have brought you great healing to have lived through your childhood again vicariously through the one you would have given your children. My roomate was born after his mother took schizophrenia medications throughout pregnancy. His childhood wasnt the best, but it certainly wasnt as bad as mine. He's quite happy now. The worst case scenario isnt always inevitable, and I cant help but think that eventhough you may think that this is the end of the road for you as far as family-life is concerned, that there may not be some unforseeable bends in the road of your life....

The rhythm method....no it doesnt always work. Natural family planning, however, does. And in this method, the work falls 50/50 upon each spouse's shoulders. The woman plots her body temperature throughout her cycle using a specially calibrated thermometer. If the couple abstains from sex until the temperature of the woman's body falls back to normal, not only will there be no egg to fertilize, but the woman's body ph and temperature will be inhospitable to sperm. Why would part of the responsibility fall on the man's shoulders? Because the man will "make or break" this approach by being disciplined enough to forego sex on specific days of the month. That means loving his wife even when he gets nothing in return. Couples have to follow the woman's cycle together or this approach will not work. So in this respect, I disagree. Men and women 
_should_ share equally in the decision to have a child, and the responsilbilities incumbent with it. Yes, the woman will have to carry the child for nine months...but in that nine months the man must support and help her, especially when she is too ill to work. This is, I beleive, when the true gender role of a man as a provider, and not just as an inseminator, comes into play. We have to watch that under the guise of being too clinical that we do not strip actions (such as sex, or having children, or loving) of any human _meaning_. As you said before, what meaning or beauty would the clinical entanglement of two bodies have if stripped of of the love, pleasure, or emotion surrounding it?

I'm now going to have to quote you where I think your logic contradicts itself:



> The biological imperative is incredibly strong. Loving someone, marrying someone, doesn't just have to be to have a family though either. That is the astonishing statement, that THAT is somehow unnatural. And then we get back into arguments about gay couples who raise children better than heterosexual couples, etc., etc., etc. I hope one day to remarry. I don't want to be alone when I'm older. I don't like being alone now.


Yes, the biological imperative is strong. _What is the biological imperative, Dreamer? _I doubt that you didnt think of the inherent contradiction when you wrote this sentence. You are quite intellectually gifted. The biological imperative is not to "marry" someone. It is to pass on one's genetic heritage. Loving someone is not the "biological imperative". It may have evolutionary benefits to be altruistic towards your fellow man (and deeper meaning as well), but that is not the biological imperative. I love my Uncle. But that isnt the "biological imperative". You want to have your cake and eat it too - argue sexuality clinically to understand it, but drop the clinical application when it arrives at a conclusion that is uncomfortable. I think everyone, no matter what religion, agrees that having sex without contraceptives is quite natural. The dealbreaker is saying that having sex, when the biological imperative is artificially removed, is unnatural. But you've said it yourself. It is natural to wish to pass on one's DNA because of our biological imperative. Isnt it logical then, to conclude from your statement, that the opposite is unnatural?

I dont wish to be unduly harsh in this post, so please forgive me in advance if I've crossed any lines or come across as chauvinistic, etc....I want to give you a train of logic that can be easily used to answer your objections, while portraying the heart behind the logic.

To answer your question regarding Christ, he said that if one could be a "eunuch for His kingdom", to do so would be better. Origen took this literally and castrated himself. In the 12th century, the Catholic Church took it less literally and made celibacy, until then optional, common place. I admit, celibacy is much better for my prayer life. That being said, there is still something divine about married life, and in my eyes, the opposite sex.

Peace
Homeskooled

PS - I'll deal with you later, Martin. Mwa-ha-ha....


----------



## Dreamer

No offense taken Home, I know you're a decent dude.

And yes I think I misspoke myself re: the biological imperative ... sort of.

You said something like getting married without having children was a sort of misplaced idea. Sorry, I forgot the words, they're somewhere back in the thread.

Here's the deal, men and women (hetero) are attracted to each other, yes, to pass on their DNA -- in my clinical way of seeing things. But a man and a woman can have sexual attraction and want to marry, and yet for MANY reasons, still not have children.

The implication is that this is somehow wrong? That if a man and a woman are attracted to each other, sexually and desire to be companions, share values, etc., etc., why wouldn't they want to marry?

I guess I just didn't understand that.

My choice to not have children wasn't ever a choice. Everything in my life, everything ... I was taking stock of things tonight and feeling quite miserable ... lead to my having no children. My inability to have healthy relationships with men (which came from an insane home) affected my choice to have a child as well. It isn't just passing on the DP, no. It is not being able to function at all, on any level during much of my 20s and 30s, when I would have married.

I could never keep up with "healthy people." I am more "healthy" NOW, and would love to have a child, but I have no proper mate to have one with. And I am going to be 48 at the end of the year. No mate, no eggs. If I had a mate, I would take his children as my own, or adopt, but as a woman, that is terribly painful. I wanted my own child/ren. I just wanted a normal life, and it was far, far from that. And I don't see how it could have been any different.

If I were to even adopt a young child at my age, I would hate to do what my parents did. Be too old to enjoy me -- well they didn't love me anyway -- I am not lying.

I have no extended family. My mother was 43 when I was born, my father 53. Far too old. No grandparents -- met them once as a little girl. One aunt who died when I was 14. Some cousins. No siblings. I have felt impossibly alone my entire life. I have no living relatives save some cousins I have little in common with and cannot depend on for anything.

The strength I had in my early years to push on has burnt out. I do the best I can. But I am tired. Really tired.

And I never felt CAPABLE of giving a child a good healthy life. It isn't until more recently, when I have been doing better that I could see having a child... but I'd have to have a mate and have a house and have a big enough income, etc., etc., etc. And I believe I would be a better mother than mine was. Virtually anyone could be a better mother. I can say this with no hesitation my mother was evil. Hateful.

I'm coming from two places, a great deal of pain and sadness, and I guess a need for you to understand that not everyone can have children -- not that they don't WANT them, and others simply choose that children are not in the cards for a million reasons. And the ideal situation is yes, Mom and Dad as a team 100%.

Also, I admire couples who KNOW they don't want to have children, but want a long term relationship. Why bring a child into the world if it is unwanted? I know what that feels like.

* But if you find someone to love, and choose to not have children and wish to marry, I don't understand how that is a misplaced idea. One still feels the NATURAL sexual attraction. Sex in and of itself, IMHO, is comforting, loving -- the greatest connection between two people. I always see sex (for me -- not to say one can't have a great time as well) as making love, not just making a baby.

I feel you are saying literally, and I think I just got that, I so slow! That sex is ONLY for making babies? That any other sex is not right or natural?*

And finally, we do indeed have to disagree about certain things. I don't like the concept of a celibate priest giving marital advice for instance. How can someone who has never had a relationship give advice on a relationship? I would not go to a marriage counsellor who'd never been married.

ACH, I'm sorry. I'm so tired and sad tonight. I hear about friends from years ago, who are successful and have careers but who most importantly have children. It hurts tremendously.

Home, I cannot have a child anymore. That is impossible simply because of my age, and I wouldn't adopt without a mate. No that door is closed. Many doors in my life are closed, not just because of DP, but because of the dysfuntion and lack of love I grew up with.

I suppose one could read this as complaining. But it is the truth. I'm not complaining, I am mourning. And I don't think I do that much on the Board. I hope.

Home, you can have children until you drop dead or your plumbing stops working. Bottom line. I cannot. I cannot have my own child now. It's too late. All I want is someone to love and to make love with and to be with in old age.

All the rest is gone.

Peace,
D


----------



## Martinelv

I know Homeskooled, I know. In this Brave New World of ours, you are an Alpha and I'm a Beta, at best. Still, the Soma takes the terrible pain of it all away..........


----------



## Rozanne

Dear Homeskooled, 
With all due respect, you just ended an argument by pointing out that one of your opponents needs peace and that the other was only arguing because of a personal loss. Cheap tricks.

Click below to confirm your alpha-status:

http://www.modernhumorist.com/mh/0006/alpha/index.cfm


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Miss Starling,
Due respect noted. You're correct. I ended my argument with Martin by pointing out that he needs peace. That was, however, not my argument, and he does, indeed, need some peace in his mind. Dreamer and I, however, are not arguing. We are sharing information. She is letting me know new things, and I am sharing new things with her. My "arguments" (more like comedic mental exercises for the both of us) with Martin are about who is "right". My "discussions" with Dreamer are about sharing viewpoints. There's a difference. Things are not always so polarized, Miss Starling. Secondly, the point I made in my last post didnt even venture to guess as to _why_ Dreamer feels the way she feels. I actually give her the benefit of the doubt that her stance is based on logic and try to make my points likewise.

Dreamer, 
That was a heart-rending post! I feel so terrible for you, I really do, because my DP has kept me isolated as well. I know just how you feel. Trust me, though - if you can remain flexible, your life can change! And I want to point out that the reasons you gave for having sex - companionship, emotional closeness, etc....are all valid reasons for having sex. I'm NOT saying otherwise. Current Church teaching is that sex exists for two reasons : the unitive purpose (love, companionship, emotional attachment), and procreation. I tend to disagree. I think sex exists for MANY, many more reasons, including artistic drive. I told this to the head of my theology department, and they really want to KLEP test me out of my bachelor's degree and start me on a Master's in theology. I dont think I can do it, though - I tend to think theology is morally bankrupt! Prayer is much more useful for knowing God. I told this to my sister, who is a nun studying theology, and it got her really angry. But she's always been prideful like my parents, so go figure.

I want to reiterate, removing ANY of the purposes of sexuality is considered harmful to a relationship (from a theological standpoint) and bad for society. So removing emotional attachment, but still having a child, is just as bad. Thats called the sin of lust. Or being emotionally attached but refusing children when you're _fertile_ might be selfish, etc....If the person is doing this out of a conscientious decision, such as yourself, it would be considered an action that is objectively unnatural, but as sin is in the intent, casts no bad light on yourself, for _your intention is good_ while your action may not be perfect. I know your heart is good, Dreamer. These are just the theoretical "ideals" we can strive for, and I really think they're good. If I need to space out my kids, I'll try to do it naturally. The gist, the whole point of theology of the body, of theology itself, is to increase the understanding of the purposes of things, of the universe, in relationship to God, and by doing so, to increase people's happiness, understanding, and stability. Thats it. Truths dont exist to torture people. They are there to enlighten and set free. The idea is to enjoy sex in its _entirety_, every bit of it, whole and free. Emotionally, physically, psychologically, and biologically - simultaneously. For one reason or another, we think its an impossible ideal, but really, we are too complex for our own good.

In other words, in answer to your statment, I am NOT saying that making babies is the ultimate aim of sexuality. It is ONE of the aims. The aim, rather, is to experience sexuality in its natural entirety. That means that if someone is infertile (because of age, disease, genetics, etc...), it is quite alright for them to have sex to their hearts content. There is nothing theologically unsound with old people "getting it on". By the way, you'll never hear me use that phrase again, so enjoy it while you can. They are experiencing _their_ sexuality in its natural entirety. Menopause is natural. So is post- menopause. And so is fertile pre-menopause. As it says in the psalms, there is a time for everything - a time to sing, a time to dance, a time to laugh, a time to cry. If the psalmist lived nowadays, I'm sure he'd be into the theology of the body. Dreamer, try to pursue your hearts desires to the their fullest. Your desires are given to you by God. It is one of the most basic ways he speaks to us. Try to fulfill them in a loving, morally sound way. But try to fulfill them. Perhaps you could be a mentor and take care of young children? Or visit orphanages or foster children in your area. They are _at least_ as lonely as you are. You may find kindred spirits there. And most of all, try to meditate a little, to pray a little each day. God may guide you in ways I cannot.

Dear Martin, 
Aw, I'll let your insults go this time. (*Translation: I cant quote your previous post as Dreamer and my posts have filled my topic review screen) But let this be a lesson to you. Next outburst I will be doubling your dose of Soma. Betas are here to serve US. Pshaw.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Epiphany

HomeSkooled...

There appear to be so many rules...rules defining what is right, wrong, natural, unnatural, what classifies as a sin. How can you define these things with such black and white clarity? How can God?

If God loves unconditionally, why so many conditions? How can one increase their happiness, understanding and stability if to win God's approval one must first know all the rules and then make every possible attempt to follow them?

God's love for us seems so complicated and full of "I love you but's" that it makes morality seem societal based to me rather than based on "truths".

If the things you have classed here as unnatural are in fact seen as having sin as the intent, then we are surrounded by unnatural happenings that are considered mainstream part of everday living.

What is your take on medical intervention? When someone is ill, should they seek medical treatment (ie; medications etc)...should doctors "save" lives...are they intervening with the natural processes that God has in place?

The "truth" is that modern life has become so complex and "unnatural" that surely the same ideology that God had in mind for humankind back when the scriptures and writings of the bible occurred can not still be considered as factual in todays world.

There are so many reasons not to have children now...it is not as cut and dry as it once was. Costs of living, the general evils and complexities of the world today, increased risks, dangers, choices etc.

I find all the rules that we must live by in order to stay in favour with God seem contradictory to the statement that God loves us unconditionally.

Noone has yet been able to provide me with any satisfactory reason as to why this is?

HomeSkooled, you appear to have the most knowledge on anything remotely related to religion than anyone I have come across. Do you not question these things??? Perhaps you could shed some light? :?

Is it not enough to live well, help others where necessary and treat others as you would wish to be treated. That seems to me a much simpler creedo to live by than all the if's and but's that require you to be ideal in the eyes of God.


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Epiphany, 


> f God loves unconditionally, why so many conditions? How can one increase their happiness, understanding and stability if to win God's approval one must first know all the rules and then make every possible attempt to follow them?


 That is where you fail to understand God! You cannot make God love you! You cannot "earn" his approval! St. Augustine said that the difference between "good" people and "bad" people in relation to God is like the difference between the trough of an ocean wave and the crest, and God is the moon. No matter how "good" we act, we cant earn more love. No matter how evil we are, we cant stop Him from loving us. No matter what we do, we are still thousands of miles away from his burning love and perfection! Is it good to be good? Of course! But not in the human sense of "perfection". We must be perfect in love. And to do that without knowing God first is like a doctor who treats symptoms. People commit evil because they do not know God. Once you know and love Him, He will perfect you. It isnt your job. You can choose to reject Him by sinning, but it takes a great deal of sin to completely reject him. One must love God first, then everything else will fall into place and make sense. The "symptoms" of evil behaviour will disappear, because the root cause has been treated and diagnosed, and good actions will flow from the source of your spiritual life - God, Christ, and their love for you and humanity. Then you will truly be able to "love those who hate you, bless those who curse you, do good to those who persecute you". If not, we will only be able to love and be loved on a human scale. The first step in knowing God and being loved by Him, and loving him in return, is silent prayer.

Medical intervention? I cannot remember the word, but anything considered to be extraordinary means, such as machines to keep one alive, can be turned off. Feeding tubes? Being a medical man myself, thats not extraordinary means. Very, very normal, and not at all invasive. You can use 18th century technology to pull those off.

Now as far as all this theological hairsplitting goes, it is just that - hairsplitting. In most cases, it does more evil than it does good. As far as sexuality goes, I think its a good idea, because the act of bringing more human lives into this world has the potential for great good and thus, terrible abuse. It needs to be as clear as possible. Other sins? It is enough to know that God loves you and that if you love him, and your neighbor, with your whole heart, mind, and soul, and that if you truly pray to God with your heart, that He will take care of you. If you follow those two commandments, the 'greatest of the commandments', you will not violate the Ten.

peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Epiphany

> People commit evil because they do not know God. Once you know and love Him, He will perfect you. It isnt your job. You can choose to reject Him by sinning, but it takes a great deal of sin to completely reject him.


If I do not have faith or belief that God exists, does this count as committing evil?



> No matter how evil we are, we cant stop Him from loving us


Does this mean that whether we love him, believe he exists, or pray to him makes no real difference in terms of the final outcome?

I suppose my real question is, if I am leading a good life, committing a minimal amount of sins (just an estimation as I'm not sure of all the things that class as a sin) and am just an all-round nice person, then if I choose not to believe God exists does it make any difference? In your opinion. Does it make me less of a person than say someone who has total faith in God and loves them with all their heart, if we are both leading similar lives?


----------



## Dreamer

I haven't read everything here 100% in depth, but at this point, I'm with Ephiphany, and actually appreciated Miss Starling's pithy remarks and her link, lol.

At this point, I have to agree with both. And especially as a woman. There is also something ... God I hate to use this word with you Home ... patronizing, when a man thinks he knows what a woman feels about having a child. I know some men are deeply moved by being fathers. I know they would do anything for their children.

But here I have to say, you cannot carry a child inside of you. You cannot know what that is. I could have, I miss that so desperately, and always will. There was no way it was going to happen.

And again, I do not believe... I don't... that making love, but not having children is a bad thing.

And I agree, the world is full of miserable, lonely, abandoned children. Children that were conceived exactly as they should have been ... a man and woman having sex without protection... whether the child was wanted or not. Frequently, I find that the greatest sin.

Best,
D


----------



## Homeskooled

Dear Epiphany, 


> If I do not have faith or belief that God exists, does this count as committing evil?


Evil is not a "thing". Evil is a non-entity, a lack of what exists, which is God. Everything that is is an expression of God. Man is created in his image. The ecology of the world is His engineering. Anything that is imperfect is "lacking" in something. That is what evil is. A lack of something. Compassion. Understanding. Love. Empathy. Wisdom. Is it then evil to not beleive in God? The word "sin" comes from the Greek "to miss the mark". They would yell "sin!" when an Olympic archer missed his target. More than that, however, sin implies _knowingly_ missing that mark. If you are open to the truth and the fact that God may exist, then you arent really sinning. You may be missing the mark, but you arent trying to miss. The next best thing is to actually try to _hit_ the mark, and pray for faith.



> Does this mean that whether we love him, believe he exists, or pray to him makes no real difference in terms of the final outcome?


Will God ever stop loving us? No. But God and "Heaven" and "Hell" dont work in the classical sense. God stays the same as He always is. _We_ are the ones who change in our proximity to Him. By sinning, we just hurt ourselves. God doesnt "send" you to Hell. By rejecting His attributes and his personal manifestations in this life, we move ourselves to Hell, which is just a state of internal chaos, confusion, darkness, and Godlessness. Heaven is a state of unity with God and what he stands for. Both, by their definition, start here on earth. If someone is going to be eternally seperated from God, its probably no surprise to them on their deathbed. They will simply continue living out the halflight and darkness they have chosen in the afterlife. Needless to say, I think most people make it to heaven, even if in many cases it is probably by the skin of their teeth. We've done a grand job on this earth in confusing people about God and His intentions. The best way to have a spiritual life is to not think about the next life, but just about God, by praying. Right here, right now.



> I suppose my real question is, if I am leading a good life, committing a minimal amount of sins (just an estimation as I'm not sure of all the things that class as a sin) and am just an all-round nice person, then if I choose not to believe God exists does it make any difference? In your opinion. Does it make me less of a person than say someone who has total faith in God and loves them with all their heart, if we are both leading similar lives?


Your never less of a person. Let me make that clear. Noone, sinner or saint , is less or more of a person. We all have innate, unchanging dignity, because God loves us, even if we dont recognize this ourselves (this is what sinner's truly lack - a divine sense of self-esteem). But are you really going to reach your potential in the supernatural journey of life by "looking away" from the source of all that is Good? God is not a fire-breathing morality cop. "Come to me all you who are weary, and I will give you rest, for my yoke is easy, and my burden, light."

Dear Dreamer, 


> I haven't read everything here 100% in depth, but at this point, I'm with Ephiphany, and actually appreciated Miss Starling's pithy remarks and her link, lol.


Yes, I appreciated Miss Starlings link, too. I think I scored a "ooh, oooh, eee", as opposed to a "ooh-ohh-aaaa-aaaa!". I need to work on that. I'm not, however, dismissing your viewpoint because it is based on personal loss, as she said. Nor can I honestly say how it feels to crave motherhood or be a mother as only a woman can. I can only say that I appreciate your reasons for waiting, and since you asked about the theological explanation behind the no-contraception stance, I've given it with as much personal explanation as I can endeavor to give. But debates about contraception, children, and abortion are no more women's issues than child support payments are a "man only" issue. These are social issues, as having a child is a an action that takes two people. Whether its natural procreation or artifical insemination. No man can fully know what it is like to be a mother, but no woman can fully know what it is like to be a man or a father. The table turns both ways. Matriarchal societies are just as destructive as patriarchal ones. The only way families work, and modern society will begin to appreciate them again, is when the two sexes will begin to see how they are _both_ needed, through empathy, understanding, and mutual respect, to create a home, and children, and fill them in turn with love, stability, and a willingness to appreciate each other's viewpoints, male or female.

Only then will the "sin" of unwanted children be eradicated, and we will stop "missing the mark" in our frantic search for love and happiness.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Martinelv

> Evil is a non-entity, a lack of what exists, which is God


I'm confused here, once again. Does that mean the purgatory, in the biblical sense is evil, in itself? Because I thought that purgatory was simply the absence of god...

Are hurricanes evil? Tornadoes? Car crashes? Leaukemia?


----------



## Homeskooled

> I'm confused here, once again. Does that mean the purgatory, in the biblical sense is evil, in itself? Because I thought that purgatory was simply the absence of god...


I'm confused too, because I thought purgatory was a purification in God's love...



> Are hurricanes evil? Tornadoes? Car crashes? Leaukemia?


Yes, hurricanes are evil. You can see the devil if you look at photographs of them long enough. Same with tornadoes. Car crashes and leaukemia, however, are God sends. Sorry. Please, noone take the above seriously. No, they are not "evil" in the sense that they have bad intentions. They are evil in the sense that they are imperfect. Leaukemia and all cancers are due to improper multiplication of cells due to defective DNA. In this case, stem cells. Do they lack their intended purpose? Yes. What is evil? A lack of the intended "perfected" purpose. In this way, leuakemia is a manifestation of evil....a product of imperfection in the world. In Catholicism, it is a product of the "Original Sin", a parable told in Genesis. What the true "original sin" was doesnt matter. Suffice it to say that spiritual and physical imperfections are somehow connected, and that after man rejected God for the first time, nature began to reflect this choice. Before original sin, things work in harmony. Afterwards, there is disharmony in the universe. Wind is not bad. When it destroys human life, it is. Bacteria is not bad. When it lives in your intestines, it helps you to digest food. But the Black Plague is. It is bacteria run amuck. Like humanity's current state.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------

