Humility: Reason vs. Faith

you're not my type, sliver, you are too sexy for me.

It's a troll. Asking them to be consistent with their ramblings is like asking a chimpanzee to write a Shakespeare.

yes twin, that's very true. as i see it, those who ask the chimp to write a shakespeare are actually more stupid than the chimp.

We're not worthy! We're not worthy! 😛

Seriously, stop teasing the middle-aged-man-who's-acting-like-a-10-year-old. Maybe it's a midlife crisis thing.

Actually, no. I do NOT think that EVERYONE else is inferior. Just you.

hahaha, intellectual arrogance! you seem to think of yourself as too "intellectual" that everyone else is inferior. a bad case of bloated ego.

i don't know what it is. i'm too idiot for you intellectual god!!! can you please explain?

I think I already make the outline, based on the comment of this thread:

//May I also ask you what made you say that the Christian God is highly improbable?//

(Your response) Three words: Problem of Evil.

Then, I ask you to explain WHY. Why does the problem of evil made you say that the Christian God is highly improbably?

And then I replied that I already wrote down my arguments about the Problem of Evil and the improbability of the omnipotent and benevolent God in a few other articles and I find no point in writing them all over again here. So if you want to comment or counter my arguments, please do so in those articles I posted. Thank you.

This thread talks about the humility of reason and the arrogance of faith. I still have to see a faith imposing itself to reason, as if reason can be totally imprisoned by any belief, religious or non-religious. If I ask the thread starter for a respectful dialogue, I am not engaging in a debate here. If you notice, I'm more concern in clarifying ideas and challenging unfounded accusations than engaging in the so-called dogma imposition. [A side note: If you're a blog reader of Christian apologetics, you will also find me there challenging their positions which I think bias and unreasonable.]

For example, the TS accusation of the bible as "full of hearsays and circular reasoning" is a clear example of name-calling. This fallacy of name-calling is a common mistake among first year college students. Instead of assessing on the basis of reason the strength and weakness of an idea/argument, they simply call the idea/argument ridiculous or absurd without any further explanation. [see Eric Reitan]

In addition, how could he critically assess the bible without using biblical exegesis which is an accepted tool of biblical studies in modern times — by both believing and non-believing biblical scholars? If ever he read this criticism from a biblical scholar, a man of science and reason will not naively accept it as certain without consulting the works of other scholars, or better still, personally verified its certainty or uncertainty.

Yes, you can cite works of the specialists but you have to reason yourself. Critical thinking demands that you do not simply accept what professor A is saying, you have to consult other experts' opinions and then make your judgment.

It is amusing to see people claiming themselves as "men of science, logic and reason" but fall short of the basic demands of science, logic and reason.

Since the TS refused the biblical exegesis as the science of biblical interpretation, than I suggest that the topic has no reason to proceed.

Instead, I suggest that we engage in a topic which for sure he is more comfortable and most problematic among believers — the problem of evil. Thinking that he will not resort to name-calling or disrespectful of an academic discipline.

This is the context where I insist that the dialogue will be held in this thread. Of course, I know well that there is a forum for certain topics, especially that the topic I selected is popular.

["For example, the TS accusation of the bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” is a clear example of name-calling. This fallacy of name-calling is a common mistake among first year college students. Instead of assessing on the basis of reason the strength and weakness of an idea/argument, they simply call the idea/argument ridiculous or absurd without any further explanation."]

@ nomadic gadfly – 🙂 For the record, you are the one pointing finger here. You cannot simply assume that anyone who has issues on your claim has no knowledge of your Bible/Church considering the personal histories of freethinkers who used to be hardcore Catholics/protestants, Bible readers and preachers and listeners. One cannot contradict what one does not know of in the first place. In fact, my parent’s house has a library of Catholic/Christian works/books (from ancient history up to almanacs and geology including those commentaries of popular bible scholars) where I used to work on my Bible lectures every week. So I need not further elaborate my point that I know the Bible. 🙂 `

So, if you insist on a dialogue, I suggest you start bringing down your issues on the Problem of Evil now. Innerminds has explained in his other articles (the links of which he posted) why the Bible is full of hearsay and circular reasoning. It is a well-settled rule that “whoever alleges that the contention of another is wrong has the burden of proof to rule otherwise.” Well, I am excited to see how you use your reason since you think we fell short on it 🙂 I might learn from you. After all, arrogance is not my cup of tea. 🙂

Not because you replied to the questions you are now holding your ground reasonably. For example, if you read your reply to Reynor about the “how” of science and the “why” of philosophy, you’re now delimiting the truth statement of science – meaning, that science can only answer to questions regarding the “hows” of things; that it cannot answer the “whys” of life. The implication of this distinction is that science, while can issue truth-statement about how life come into existence, it cannot provide truth-statement about why there is life.

Now, here is the problem. In your next argument you said, “(r)eligion, on the other hand, tries to impose its own answers to the same questions being asked by science such as how we all got here.” Here you placed religion and science in the same category like student A and student B answering the same question of the origin of human life. This is an error of perspective: (a) Science is concern with the how: How does human life begin? Here you will take note of the scientific speculations of the gradual evolution of life based on chemical and physical properties of matter. Before DNA, there was an RNA speculation. And (b) Religion is concern with man’s relationship with God. Here are some of its implications: (i) God created man from the dust of the earth and to earth shall all humans return. (ii) No humans have dominion over other humans for all are equally formed from the same earth. (iii) Humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Although earth in origin, humans received God’s breathe, that is, humans are intimately related to God and so special that he is entrusted with God’s creation (in a deeper theological sense, God enters into his creation through the human beings).

You rightly quoted Gen 2.7 but interpreted it in a fundamentalistic way, that is, literal interpretation. Since you already rejected biblical exegesis as a science of biblical interpretation, then there is no need for me to explain because no productive dialogue for a closed mindset. And I see no practical reason in engaging such a useless endeavor.

My problem is not about your outright rejection, but your unfounded bias against anything religious. A real man of science, logic and reason as you claimed you are does not simply reject hypothesis without detailed examination.

Your accusation of the Bible as “full of hearsay and circular reasoning” is born out of ignorance of the Bible itself. Or maybe you heard it from other people but not personally studied and verified it. If you verified it and simply interpret the text in its literal sense, then your method is wrong. A man of logic and reason will provide in-depth analysis of the text before making his judgment. How can you effectively analyze the text without the tools of biblical exegesis? How can you easily dismiss the Bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” without studying it, In so doing, you are far from being a man of science, of logic and of reason. Walk the talk.

//Since you already rejected biblical exegesis as a science of biblical interpretation, then there is no need for me to explain because no productive dialogue for a closed mindset. And I see no practical reason in engaging such a useless endeavor.//

Agreed.

//My problem is not about your outright rejection, but your unfounded bias against anything religious. A real man of science, logic and reason as you claimed you are does not simply reject hypothesis without detailed examination.
Your accusation of the Bible as “full of hearsay and circular reasoning” is born out of ignorance of the Bible itself. Or maybe you heard it from other people but not personally studied and verified it. If you verified it and simply interpret the text in its literal sense, then your method is wrong. A man of logic and reason will provide in-depth analysis of the text before making his judgment. How can you effectively analyze the text without the tools of biblical exegesis? How can you easily dismiss the Bible as “full of hearsays and circular reasoning” without studying it, In so doing, you are far from being a man of science, of logic and of reason. Walk the talk.//

It's not the Biblical text per se, but the Bible's authenticity – or lack thereof – as the true Word of God that I have a problem with. I've written about that before when I still considered myself a deist: http://innerminds.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/word-o…
and I just wrote another post today: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/07/17/a-form… (it's a rather long post but my discussion about the Bible's authenticity can be found in the 9th paragraph).

Free spirit… as well as the word 'freethinkers'… It seems not to make any sense. Both imply that liberty in the end in itself. Oh no, it's not. Yes liberty and freethinking is innate to everyone, as well as love. We apply our freethinking when we use it to love something we want to subject into. The perfection of liberty is its use as the faculty to choose the authority which we believe is right and in which we must submit.

On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously.

"“On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously.”"

*Ahem*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_Report
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23…
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,151…

…among other things.

"And for the problem of the Inquisition and burning of condemned people at the stake, I think the victims are only those who were proven believing in the Supernatural Truth, but seek to deny it, e.g. believing that both a good God and the Devil exists, but rather worshiping the evil one. I’m referring to the Masons and Illuminati."

In the end, they DID endorse the killing of people who didn't agree with them, didn't they?

Let me be frank here – you do not get to wash the hands of an institution that has, among other things, jailed intellectuals, demonizes its opponents, and jails

As for my gaming fanboy resident. You missed my point. By a very large margin. My point is that fanboys ruin it for everybody, period.

And by fanboys I mean fanatics, those that honestly think that anybody who does not bow to the same brand of dogma as they do are evil, and hence must either be converted, or killed.

"It’s the other people who persecute us."

Calling out a self-righteous institution's wrongs, and exposing their long-standing traditions of hiding sex offenders is not "persecution." It's called speaking the truth and the reality of the situation. It's called calling out bullshit.

Persecution is telling gays in a loving, long-term relationship with their partners that they cannot enjoy the same benefits of a straight couple for no other reason than that they're gay.

Persecution is firing a teacher just because she's an atheist, or because she doesn't fit the church's moral ideal, and not because of a real offense at the school she teaches.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/06/10/more-teache…

In short, it's not the church that's being persecuted. The Vatican is simply invoking the WAAAmbulance because people have finally gotten tired of their dogma, and are beginning to speak up.

When

"we never promoted killing nor discrimination."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/ar…
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL3016839520071…

These are among the more recent news items I remember.

As for me it's the unity in the 'right' and 'universal' belief that makes the people grow. On your example concerning game fanatics, of course it's ruinous since it's inapplicable to everyone, e.g. old men with poor eyesight, those who cannot understand the language associated with the game, those who cannot afford miscellaneous requirements like spending for a personal computer, etc.

Civil laws are also in the form of dogma. If traffic rules doesn't exist, can you still tell me that this kind of authorization destroys?

"On that note, I believe that any belief that orders me to irrationally hurt, kill, or discriminate against my fellow man just because of a difference in their sexual orientation or personal opinion should not be taken seriously."

As for the Roman Catholic Church, we never promoted killing nor discrimination. We always wanted everyone and anyone to be part of the brotherhood. It's the other people who persecute us. And for the problem of the Inquisition and burning of condemned people at the stake, I think the victims are only those who were proven believing in the Supernatural Truth, but seek to deny it, e.g. believing that both a good God and the Devil exists, but rather worshiping the evil one. I'm referring to the Masons and Illuminati.

I'm sorry, I haven't been used to the new order of my Church. What I've studied most is the Church before the Vatican Council II. And actually, I do not speak for the bishops and priests of this order. I am a Catholic Traditionalist, ie protestant to the new order.

I thought you atheists are against superstition? But if you're telling me that the universe came from nothing–hey, are you talking about David Copperfield's magic?

First of all, we are not all atheists. Second, I'm not telling you that the universe came from nothing but simply that it 'could' come from nothing if the zero-net-energy-quantum-fluctuation hypothesis is correct, of which I have no way of knowing for sure. I am also telling you that while I do not discount the possibility that the universe was created by an intelligent and powerful being, I am not ruling out other explanations for its origin as well. One of these explanations is that the universe did NOT begin to exist but rather has existed in some form or another throughout eternity.

"First of all, that is NOT a scientific theory but merely a hypothesis because it is not testable but only based on the idea that the net energy of the universe is zero and so the entire cosmos could have been the result of quantum fluctuations…"

So it is just a hypothesis… that makes it of less sense.

I think you're talking about the Higgs Boson.

"Can you give an example of “contrary beliefs” being held by the same person and tell us how the above paragraph does not apply?"

I agree that the human mind can contain only limited human knowledge. But although this is true, one may say that why he claim to know about supernatural knowledge is because it is revealed to him. Now you may ask the credibility of this alleged Revelation, that requires personal research if you are to refuse faith.

"Are you sure? What do you make out of slavery throughout history? Are you saying that the people who bought and sold slaves had an innate sense of justice?"

Yes. They just either don't know about or refuse to follow it. But the sons of these white men proved them wrong. Now Americans lead the promotion of the International Declaration of Human Rights, so still they know slavery and other abuse is wrong. It's just a matter of experience to discover justice.

"Of all the examples you could have used you had to choose politicians – the very people whose words do not necessarily reflect their deeds. Of course politicians would say to the world (or at least to the voters) that they will do everything in their power to promote justice. But have all of them actually delivered such justice?"

Yeah my use of politicians may be inappropriate. But let's consider the message–that justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything. The politicians may don't really promote real justice, they still know that they're wrong. And if you would say that they mean it to be just, experience and results will still tell that justice must be delivered in a must way.

Now answer my questions.

May I ask you another question?

Do you believe that truth exist? Or truth is what the human mind define it?

Oh, forgive me. The word innate wasn't clear to me. =)
I thought it was something which is a natural necessity.

So we were really on the same side. =)

And it was only one question:
"Doesn’t that mean that justice is really innate and is not just acquired but also discovered?"

But it's nonsense.

So let's move on to another topic.

"I totally agree that "justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything.”"

So you also agree that justice is a necessary system. That means were born to submit to the right laws of the universe, whether scientific, social, or moral. And since laws were acquired to deliver us to a predetermined end, then that imply that we really have a purpose for our existence, that is, to work for the welfare of the society. And also Sartre said, "unless you assume a God, the question of your life's purpose is meaningless". Summing it all up, we assume that we really have a purpose and a God, for our end didn't come from us, but from Someone.

"Yes, there is no question that truth exists independently from the human mind. The question is, how do we determine what is true?"

Then truth is just lurking by. Then it's possible to find it. We can only distinguish it by test, for every truth came from the form of theories.

//So you also agree that justice is a necessary system.//

Not so fast. I would say that justice is necessary in order to achieve a civilized society. Look at certain parts of Africa (forgive me, I'm poor in geography) where justice does not exist, where people's hands are chopped in order to prevent them from voting and where warlords massacre entire communities with impunity. Surely justice is not necessary for such societies to exist.

//That means were born to submit to the right laws of the universe, whether scientific, social, or moral. And since laws were acquired to deliver us to a predetermined end, then that imply that we really have a purpose for our existence, that is, to work for the welfare of the society. And also Sartre said, “unless you assume a God, the question of your life’s purpose is meaningless”. Summing it all up, we assume that we really have a purpose and a God, for our end didn’t come from us, but from Someone.//

That's quite a jump you made there. I think we are digressing from the original article. If you don't mind, let me direct you to a related article, just a short one: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/01/10/purpos…

This is the highlight:

"I think purpose comes after the fact, because we can make a purpose out of unfortunate events. Take a look at the typhoons and floods that killed hundreds last year, for example, or the gruesome massacre that brutally ended the lives of 57 persons. Some people would claim that they have a purpose, and part of that is to awaken the Filipinos and make them turn from their evil ways. However, I highly doubt that an omnipotent and loving deity would lack the imagination to come up with more effective and less genocidal ways to win the hearts and souls of its beloved creation. But as the most highly evolved of all creatures, we can (and we actually did) make a purpose for these tragedies so that we should not have suffered them in vain. Ondoy exposed the fatal hazards of poor (and corrupt) urban planning, reminding developers to be conscientious and citizens to be vigilant. The Maguindanao killings let the world know that there was an oppressive empire right within our country’s borders whose king and princes reigned in terror, where human rights were violated on a daily basis and everyone was too scared to talk. Now this empire is no more, and if we keep a watchful eye it will probably stay that way."

//Then truth is just lurking by. Then it’s possible to find it. We can only distinguish it by test, for every truth came from the form of theories.//

Totally agree. 🙂

//I agree that the human mind can contain only limited human knowledge. But although this is true, one may say that why he claim to know about supernatural knowledge is because it is revealed to him. Now you may ask the credibility of this alleged Revelation, that requires personal research if you are to refuse faith.//

Allow me to quote what the deists have to say about "divine revelation":

"Revelation: The act of revealing or of making known. In the religious sense, revelation usually means divine revelation. This is meaningless, since revelation can only be revelation in the first instance. For example, if God revealed something to me, that would be a divine revelation to me. If I then told someone else what God told me it would be mere hearsay to the person I tell. If that person believed what I said, they would not be putting their trust in God, but in me, believing what I told them was actually true."

//Yes. They just either don’t know about or refuse to follow it. But the sons of these white men proved them wrong. Now Americans lead the promotion of the International Declaration of Human Rights, so still they know slavery and other abuse is wrong. It’s just a matter of experience to discover justice.//

Check out this definition of 'innate' from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/innate : "Of or produced by the mind rather than learned through experience." Now if you say that "it's just a matter of experience to discover justice", that's no longer innate.

As for the sons of the white men who proved their fathers wrong about slavery, look how they still discriminated against the blacks even after the emancipation.

//Yeah my use of politicians may be inappropriate. But let’s consider the message–that justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything. The politicians may don’t really promote real justice, they still know that they’re wrong. And if you would say that they mean it to be just, experience and results will still tell that justice must be delivered in a must way.//

I totally agree that "justice is a just system that cannot be replaced by anything." But that's beside the point. What we are arguing here is if man has an innate sense of justice.

//Now answer my questions.//

Could you please specify which questions I have not yet answered?

//Do you believe that truth exist? Or truth is what the human mind define it?//

Yes, there is no question that truth exists independently from the human mind. The question is, how do we determine what is true?

"- fair enough. you know contempt is wrong. but can you erase the fact that you think all other gods and belief systems are inferior to your own? will Christianity respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of non-christians?
no, they will always seek to convert because of the 1st commandment and the very core of every religion is to believe that their belief is the One Truth. Its that smug certainty that innerminds was talking about." -wes

When a person chooses to believe something among many other things it is because he thinks that that thing he chose is the best among the many other things. This is true not only for believers of god but to atheists as well and to all many other things and fields whenever we exercise our freedom to choose.

Yes, there are those who seek to proselytize and your judgment upon that is spot-on. However, the mistakes of the few, being mistakes, do not represent the faith that we believe. I am a Catholic and I believe that conversion is not gained from winning a debate or argument, faith is to be lived first and foremost, to be a living example of Christ’s love among neighbors. The conversion of another is a gift that only the god that we believe can bestow upon.

"Yes, science can’t prove with 100% certainty that a god-being doesn’t exist in the same way it can’t prove that santa claus may not be real because of the lack of sufficient evidence either way. This is the responsible way to evaluate the situation. So a christian also can’t be 100% certain that his beliefs are correct so he can’t say with total conviction that he knows with all his heart that christ is the one true god. He can only say that christ “may” be god, or that the holy spirit “may” be real. That would be the humble thing to do… *admit* uncertainty just like science does." -wes

If one truly believes it in his heart who’s to say that he cant? Be it Santa Claus, if he truly believes and says so then that is just him being honest about how he feels. Is it arrogant for him to say so if he truly believe it in his heart?

I wish more people "of faith" have your temperance. Its when someone's "certainty" crashes head-on with other's "certainty" that bad things happen. As they say, good fences make good neighbors. As long as faith remains personal inasmuch as it doesn't try to impose its beliefs on others, I have no problem with that.

it is true what you said about contradicting certainties. it is only natural that we have the desire to share what we believe is true but we should always remember that we can only share it, present it and let others decide on their own.

yes, i agree, faith is personal but it does not mean that it has no place in the public square, for how can we be true to ourselves if we cannot live out in public what we personally believe and this is true be it for Christians, atheists, or agnostics, Muslims…

…and yes imposing one's belief over another is always wrong.

religious extremism is a perfect example of what happens divorcing faith and reason. the problem perhaps, when people have the impression that a choice has to be made between the two, is the wrong understanding of what faith means when it comes to "religious" faith. it is not that of "blind" but that which has to be with reason.

@ Reynor,

Can you give us an example of faith that "has to be with reason"?

The link to the document I posted above is a comprehensive resource on faith and reason. not only an example but explanation as well. enjoy reading.

Tl;dr. Care to present your arguments in a few sentences or just give the highlights?

your request of presenting it in a few sentences is like asking for the explanation of the bible in a few words.

if you care enough to present or enumerate particularly which of the many aspects about our faith you think that suppport your argument about pitting faith against reason then i'd be able to address your concerns precisely.

//your request of presenting it in a few sentences is like asking for the explanation of the bible in a few words.//

If you were a lawyer arguing before the court, would you simply tell the judge to read a certain lengthy supreme court decision instead of citing its ruling?

//if you care enough to present or enumerate particularly which of the many aspects about our faith you think that suppport your argument about pitting faith against reason then i’d be able to address your concerns precisely.//

Percier Decierdo presented it clearly:

"Reason is humble, faith is not. Reason is open to the possibility that its claims are wrong, faith is not. Faith is cock-sure and certain, scientific reason is not. Faith makes claims to super-human knowledge, scientific reason does not.

The only knowledge human brains can contain is human knowledge, that is, limited knowledge. Because all we have are human brains with limited human knowledge, we cannot claim to be certain about everything. Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about."

“If you were a lawyer arguing before the court, would you simply tell the judge to read a certain lengthy supreme court decision instead of citing its ruling?” –innerminds

So, I suppose that in this scenario you are the judge? We can turn the table and the same applies, you are asking me to summarize a “lengthy supreme court decision” instead of letting me know in particular what needs to be addressed.

“Reason is humble…Yet faith, that archenemy of reason, makes people believe that they can be certain about things they actually know nothing about.” -innerminds

It is like saying that science is the enemy of philosophy because science could not come up with an algebraic expression that will help me determine the purpose of my life. The premise is wrong from the very beginning.

Who’s to say and determine what qualifies as human knowledge? Is there a standard by which we can compare that such ideas are to be qualified as non-human knowledge and so we cannot comprehend? Are we not, in dealing with scientific facts, relying on our faith to those who we believe to know more about them than we do?

Faith and reason go together; they are not against each other in the same way that science and religion are not to be pitted against each other. Yes, they are different but they are supposed to work hand in hand, each covering a different aspect of our personality and humanity.

it remains that what you really are against is not religion but what you think religion is. I am a Catholic and my faith tells me that science and religion are not in contradiction. My religion tells me that God created everything and expecting science to help me understand how. it is as simple as that. they cover two different fields.

Galileo is an old issue that keeps on being regurgitated. it has already been becoming a joke to be bringing that up in an attempt to support a claim that the Church is against science.

It is not because of the heliocentric theory but Galileo's claim without sufficient evidence. Given the level of technology and availability of instruments that would not be sufficient at that time to confirm with absolute certainty the Church advises Galileo to present his claim for what it is…a scientific theory, but Galileo even went so far as to not only proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive evidence at that time, but also moved the discussion into theology against the Church…instead of confining the issue within the realms of science.

let us not also forget that the heliocentric theory that Galileo adapted is the work of who we consider as the father of modern astronomy, N. Copernicus, is a catholic cleric.

//Galileo is an old issue that keeps on being regurgitated. it has already been becoming a joke to be bringing that up in an attempt to support a claim that the Church is against science.//

Still, it shows what the church is capable of in terms of arrogance. Today, the church has been insisting that condoms do not prevent STDs and actually worsen the problem. Do they have scientific studies to back that up? Or is it simply because in 1968 Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical – Humanae Vitae on the Regulation of Birth – that prohibits contraceptives?

//It is not because of the heliocentric theory but Galileo’s claim without sufficient evidence. Given the level of technology and availability of instruments that would not be sufficient at that time to confirm with absolute certainty…//

But during that time and even centuries before that when technology was even more primitive, the church already had a sure answer – that the sun revolved around the earth – and they adamantly held on to and even imposed this answer without any evidence at all. Who is more intellectually arrogant now, Galileo or the church?

"Still, it shows what the church is capable of in terms of arrogance. Today, the church has been insisting that condoms do not prevent STDs and actually worsen the problem. Do they have scientific studies to back that up? Or is it simply because in 1968 Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical – Humanae Vitae on the Regulation of Birth – that prohibits contraceptives?" -innerminds

A senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health thinks so too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti…

"But during that time and even centuries before that when technology was even more primitive, the church already had a sure answer – that the sun revolved around the earth – and they adamantly held on to and even imposed this answer without any evidence at all. Who is more intellectually arrogant now, Galileo or the church?" innerminds

The Church never imposes, she only proposes. Every one is always free to accept or reject in the same way that you can and are able to do, say, and believe what you will.

The sun evolving around the sun is the current and prevailing theory at that time in the scientific community. The Church recognizes this and also knows that the people at that time do not have the necessary instruments/technology to verify that theory in the same way that the heliocentric theory cannot be concluded and therefore should remain a theory. Galileo did not heed to that call but instead presented it as a fact and has taken it to a theological debate.

Between the Church, who is asking for patience and prudence, and Galileo, who claims it as a fact without enough evidence and unavailability of technological advancement/instruments to prove that theory, it is not difficult at all to discern as to who possesses the intellectual arrogance.

These are from the link you've given:

"My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics — nowhere else."

"Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia…"

However, what the church is basically saying is that condom use will not curb the spread of STDs in all countries and in all cultures.

//The Church never imposes, she only proposes. Every one is always free to accept or reject in the same way that you can and are able to do, say, and believe what you will.//

Let's not forget the fact that the church also had Galileo imprisoned for disagreeing with their belief that it was the sun that revolved around the earth.

//The sun evolving around the sun is the current and prevailing theory at that time in the scientific community. The Church recognizes this and also knows that the people at that time do not have the necessary instruments/technology to verify that theory in the same way that the heliocentric theory cannot be concluded and therefore should remain a theory.//

They also did not have the necessary instruments/technology to verify the opposite – that the sun revolved around the earth – and yet they proclaimed this as an absolute fact instead of a theory.

//Between the Church, who is asking for patience and prudence, and Galileo, who claims it as a fact without enough evidence and unavailability of technological advancement/instruments to prove that theory, it is not difficult at all to discern as to who possesses the intellectual arrogance.//

You left out the part that says who imprisoned whom because of a difference in opinion.

You quoted the article about Thailand and Cambodia but did not include the following paragraph.

"where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows."

And this, "Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him." -The Washington Post, E.Green

***

"Let’s not forget the fact that the church also had Galileo imprisoned for disagreeing with their belief that it was the sun that revolved around the earth." -innerminds

The misconception about Galileo is no longer taken seriously in the public square. Only the few who refuse to see behind propaganda against the Church continue to regurgitate this misconception. He was not imprisoned for the heliocentric theory but for preaching it as truth and making it a theological reason, discrediting the Church in understanding the Scriptures thereby teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible.

It is to be noted that his theory is not entirely correct, Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the whole universe. Now we know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move…it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

N. Copernicus, who we consider as the father of modern astronomy, whom Galileo adapted the heliocentric theory from is a Catholic cleric.

In addition, the imprisonment is not exactly the imprisonment that we know today. He was actually with a servant and living with all possible conveniences afforded to him.

//You quoted the article about Thailand and Cambodia but did not include the following paragraph.

“where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that’s not what the research in Africa shows.”

And this, “Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.” -The Washington Post, E.Green//

My point is, the pope may be correct on the non-effectiveness of condoms on the AIDS problem in Africa – but only in Africa. However, the church tries to make this as an absolute 'truth' that would apply to all countries and all cultures, which it is not.

//The misconception about Galileo is no longer taken seriously in the public square. Only the few who refuse to see behind propaganda against the Church continue to regurgitate this misconception. He was not imprisoned for the heliocentric theory but for preaching it as truth and making it a theological reason, discrediting the Church in understanding the Scriptures thereby teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible.//

Regardless. My point is, he was imprisoned (or at least was sentenced to house arrest due to old age) for disagreeing with the church's 'sacred' doctrine, which happened to be false.

//It is to be noted that his theory is not entirely correct, Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the whole universe. Now we know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move…it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.//

Still, Galileo was at least getting closer to the truth. And as far as the orbital relationship between the earth and the sun is concerned, Galileo was indeed closer to the truth than the church was at the time.

//N. Copernicus, who we consider as the father of modern astronomy, whom Galileo adapted the heliocentric theory from is a Catholic cleric.//

So?

//In addition, the imprisonment is not exactly the imprisonment that we know today. He was actually with a servant and living with all possible conveniences afforded to him.//

Still, he was deprived of freedom and even forced to recant his claims and do penance.

“My point is, the pope may be correct on the non-effectiveness of condoms on the AIDS problem in Africa – but only in Africa. However, the church tries to make this as an absolute ‘truth’ that would apply to all countries and all cultures, which it is not.”- Innerminds

The point is that the root cause is morality; the sexual promiscuousness is the problem that needs to be addressed and not the lack of condom distribution, it is not the simple reliance to a piece of plastic which only provides a sense of security that only adds to risk compensation that is the answer. And that remains true be it in Thailand, Cambodia, Africa, and everywhere else.

***

“…for disagreeing with the church’s ’sacred’ doctrine, which happened to be false.”-innerminds
It is not a “sacred” doctrine, the Church recognizes the lack of evidence that will confirm with great accuracy the theory that is being brought forward. Again, it is not an issue of geo or heliocentric theory but on proclaiming that a theory to be true without verifiable data.

***

//N. Copernicus, who we consider as the father of modern astronomy, whom Galileo adapted the heliocentric theory from is a Catholic cleric.//
“So?”-innerminds

It shows the banality of the idea being brought forward by the misconception about the Church and science and the Galileo case.

//The point is that the root cause is morality; the sexual promiscuousness is the problem that needs to be addressed and not the lack of condom distribution, it is not the simple reliance to a piece of plastic which only provides a sense of security that only adds to risk compensation that is the answer. And that remains true be it in Thailand, Cambodia, Africa, and everywhere else.//

STDs can be prevented by either abstinence or the proper use of condoms. Agreed so far? Now which one is more practical to implement? A solution that is virtually impossible to implement cannot be an effective solution – no matter how good it looks on paper. Do you really believe that enough people would buy into this abstinence crap to result in a significant reduction in the spread of STDs? Man is horny by nature, and the church arbitrarily calling this horniness ‘immoral’ and against ‘natural law’ does not change man’s nature.

However, the church keeps insisting that only abstinence is allowed by their ‘moral law’, asserting not only that they are the sole recipient and interpreter of divine ‘revelation’ but that they actually hold the patent for morality. But what gives them the right to do so? Their claims are all hearsay and circular, and they cannot even police their own ranks. How can they expect to reform entire nations? They are asking not only the impractical, but also the impossible – at the cost of the spread of STDs.

//It is not a “sacred” doctrine, the Church recognizes the lack of evidence that will confirm with great accuracy the theory that is being brought forward. Again, it is not an issue of geo or heliocentric theory but on proclaiming that a theory to be true without verifiable data.//

Allow me the quote the Consultant's Report on Copernicanism (24 February 1616):

"Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below.

Proposition to be assessed:

(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion.

Assessement: All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.

(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.

Assessment: All said that this proposition receives the same judgement in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least errouneous in faith."

Let me highlight this phrase: "formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture".

Whether Galileo was correct or not was beside the point. The church then simply could not tolerate any 'heretical' claim that contradicts its holy scripture. And that is the point of the article especially the part where I quoted Percier Decierdo:

"Reason is humble, faith is not. Reason is open to the possibility that its claims are wrong, faith is not. Faith is cock-sure and certain, scientific reason is not."

//It shows the banality of the idea being brought forward by the misconception about the Church and science and the Galileo case.//

So you're saying that just because Copernicus was Catholic it already renders banal the whole Galileo affair? In the first place, did the church officially agree with Copernicus' heliocentric cosmology?

“Do you really believe that enough people would buy into this abstinence crap to result in a significant reduction in the spread of STDs? Man is horny by nature, and the church arbitrarily calling this horniness ‘immoral’ and against ‘natural law’ does not change man’s nature. ..“However, the church keeps insisting that only abstinence is allowed by their ‘moral law’, … at the cost of the spread of STDs.”-innerminds

Again, the root cause is morality and that the Church insists on abstinence on that same ground – addressing the root cause of the problem rather than proposing that which do nothing against the main cause but rather a “quick fix” that not only promotes the main cause but provides the people with false hope.

It has nothing to do with who is the sole recipient and interpreter of divine, that is beside the subject, one does not need to be Catholic to recognize that if the problem is immorality/sexual promiscuity the answer is morality.

And yes, there are enough people, who buy into that “abstinence crap”…doing away with it would only give those people another temptation to disregard what really works and take away completely from those who are not yet practicing it to abandon it

And yes, man has that desire for sexual pleasure but that is not what is immoral and what is against the natural law. The Church recognizes those desires as gift from God, abusing it and giving in to that desire without regards to the dignity of human being and sense of responsibility to self, the neighbors, and the society is what is immoral and against the natural law… providing condoms promote just that.

**

“Allow me the quote the Consultant’s Report on Copernicanism (24 February 1616): “Assessment made at the Holy Office, Rome, Wednesday, 24 February 1616, in the presence of the Father Theologians signed below…So you’re saying that just because Copernicus was Catholic it already renders banal the whole Galileo affair? In the first place, did the church officially agree with Copernicus’ heliocentric cosmology?”-innerminds

The banality is in the use of Galileo in trying to support the portrayal of the Church as antagonistic to science. The Church continues to recognize, supports, promotes, and relies on science for all that we believe science has the capability to know, discover, and master that it may be used and utilized for the benefit of mankind. It is not only Copernicus but also numerous Catholic clergy and clerics have had successes in the field of science (e.g. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics is an Augustinian Monk)

One thing that has to be noted in the Galileo affair is that the scientific community adheres to the geocentric theory, it is what was accepted and the Church recognizes what the scientific community is stating what the most probable theory is at that time, some particular theologians have had their shares of mistakes in interpreting the Bible and the Church position on issues that involved such but it has always been that the Church practices prudence and recognizes what can and cannot be known with certainty. That is the case for Galileo who is preaching the theory as if it was already proven and using it to preach a new interpretation of the Bible.

//Again, the root cause is morality and that the Church insists on abstinence on that same ground – addressing the root cause of the problem rather than proposing that which do nothing against the main cause but rather a “quick fix” that not only promotes the main cause but provides the people with false hope.//

False hope? What's happening in Africa does not necessarily apply to the rest of the world because of the significant difference in sexual culture. Let me quote from the link that you gave:

"Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships."

In the Philippines, for example, is it a common practice to have 2-3 'regular' sex partners? And as mentioned in the article, it is the NON-use of condoms in long-term (but multiple) relationships – because condoms imply a lack of trust – that cause the spread of AIDS.

//It has nothing to do with who is the sole recipient and interpreter of divine, that is beside the subject, one does not need to be Catholic to recognize that if the problem is immorality/sexual promiscuity the answer is morality.//

Ah, but other religions have no problem with condoms and contraceptives. Are you saying that these religions did not get their revelation from the True God?

//And yes, there are enough people, who buy into that “abstinence crap”…doing away with it would only give those people another temptation to disregard what really works and take away completely from those who are not yet practicing it to abandon it//

Can you name at least one country where the majority of people actually bought into this abstinence crap – where even without condoms they do not suffer from overpopulation and the spread of STDs?

//And yes, man has that desire for sexual pleasure but that is not what is immoral and what is against the natural law. The Church recognizes those desires as gift from God, abusing it and giving in to that desire without regards to the dignity of human being and sense of responsibility to self, the neighbors, and the society is what is immoral and against the natural law… providing condoms promote just that.//

Actually I already explained this in my other article, Should There Be An Absolute Moral Standard. You might want to take this part of the discussion there.

//The banality is in the use of Galileo in trying to support the portrayal of the Church as antagonistic to science. The Church continues to recognize, supports, promotes, and relies on science for all that we believe science has the capability to know, discover, and master that it may be used and utilized for the benefit of mankind. It is not only Copernicus but also numerous Catholic clergy and clerics have had successes in the field of science (e.g. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics is an Augustinian Monk)

One thing that has to be noted in the Galileo affair is that the scientific community adheres to the geocentric theory, it is what was accepted and the Church recognizes what the scientific community is stating what the most probable theory is at that time, some particular theologians have had their shares of mistakes in interpreting the Bible and the Church position on issues that involved such but it has always been that the Church practices prudence and recognizes what can and cannot be known with certainty. That is the case for Galileo who is preaching the theory as if it was already proven and using it to preach a new interpretation of the Bible.//

The point is this: the church had Galileo imprisoned because of a difference in opinion. That's just pure arrogance. How you ever heard of anyone who was imprisoned by the scientific community for saying that it was the sun that revolved around the earth, or for claiming that the big bang never really happened?

//It has nothing to do with who is the sole recipient and interpreter of divine, that is beside the subject, one does not need to be Catholic to recognize that if the problem is immorality/sexual promiscuity the answer is morality.//

“Ah, but other religions have no problem with condoms and contraceptives. Are you saying that these religions did not get their revelation from the True God?” -innerminds

* I am saying that if the problem is caused by sexual promiscuity, an immorality then it follows that the answer is morality.

“Can you name at least one country where the majority of people actually bought into this abstinence crap – where even without condoms they do not suffer from overpopulation and the spread of STDs?” –innerminds

*I cannot name one country. The information is not available and I do not have the means to really find out at the moment. I shouldn’t have used the word enough. My point is that there are people who believe in it. And that conformation is not what determines right from wrong in this particular subject. Overpopulation is a geographical issue not a global situation. Contraceptives remain to be a “quick fix” not only it fails to address the issue of sexual promiscuity but increases the risk compensation factor.

“The point is this: the church had Galileo imprisoned because of a difference in opinion.” –innerminds

*That is an oversimplication. It has to be considered that he had taken the theory and preached it as truth and used it in introducing a new interpretation of the bible (thereby taking it into a theological debate) without heeding to the call of the Church to be patient until it can be confirmed. This is not to say that I agree with the “imprisonment”. It is a mistake that the theologians have made.

//I am saying that if the problem is caused by sexual promiscuity, an immorality then it follows that the answer is morality.//

You called sexual promiscuity as an 'immorality'. Am I right to presume that this judgment is based on Catholic moral standards? How about premarital sex and contraceptives? These are also condemned by the Catholic church, but premarital sex is acceptable in Buddhism and Judaism, and contraceptives are not condemned by the Baptists, morally acceptable for the Jews, and even blessed by the Buddhists, Methodists, Mormons, and Muslims. My point is that you base the immorality of recreational (as opposed to procreational) sex on an arbitrary standard (Catholic), passively saying that all other religions are wrong. And that's the arrogance of faith I was talking about.

////Can you name at least one country where the majority of people actually bought into this abstinence crap – where even without condoms they do not suffer from overpopulation and the spread of STDs?” –innerminds////

//I cannot name one country. The information is not available and I do not have the means to really find out at the moment. I shouldn’t have used the word enough. My point is that there are people who believe in it.//

Perhaps, but not enough to solve the problem of overpopulation and STDs.

//Contraceptives remain to be a “quick fix” not only it fails to address the issue of sexual promiscuity but increases the risk compensation factor.//

Wouldn't you agree that the proper and consistent use of contraceptives is more than just a 'quick fix'? And could it be that the reason you're calling it a 'quick fix' is simply because it is not what's prescribed by Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae on the Regulation of Birth?

////The point is this: the church had Galileo imprisoned because of a difference in opinion.” –innerminds////

//That is an oversimplication. It has to be considered that he had taken the theory and preached it as truth and used it in introducing a new interpretation of the bible (thereby taking it into a theological debate) without heeding to the call of the Church to be patient until it can be confirmed.//

Is it really an oversimplication? Have you heard of Creationists who were imprisoned by the scientific community because they insisted that the world was created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago?

“You called sexual promiscuity as an ‘immorality’. Am I right to presume that this judgment is based on Catholic moral standards? How about premarital sex and contraceptives? These are also condemned by the Catholic church, but premarital sex is acceptable in Buddhism and Judaism, and contraceptives are not condemned by the Baptists, morally acceptable for the Jews, and even blessed by the Buddhists, Methodists, Mormons, and Muslims. My point is that you base the immorality of recreational (as opposed to procreational) sex on an arbitrary standard (Catholic), passively saying that all other religions are wrong. And that’s the arrogance of faith I was talking about. -innerminds

Suppose you have a wife and your wife sleeps with other men for recreational reasons, would you consider her act as immoral only when you are a Catholic or if, because you are not Catholic would you consider it acceptable then? Would it be an arrogance of faith that and if other religions allow it, you are saying it is? There are things that are natural and innate in our being that tells us what it means to be moral and that transcends religion. It is not bad because the Church forbids, the Church forbids because it is bad.

The proclamation of truth that a person believes in is not arrogance. It is not meant to devaluate other people’s belief, it is simply a proclamation of what the person believes on his own. If I follow your reasoning then it automatically follows that whatever you say that is against my faith, even to my personal opinion, is an act of arrogance because in saying what you believe is right is saying that I am wrong.

“Perhaps, but not enough to solve the problem of overpopulation and STDs.” –innerminds

Yes perhaps not enough at the present moment and situation. But I do believe it is never wise to simply lower the standard just because people are having a hard time meeting it, in the same way that we cannot simply abolish state laws because people are having a hard time obeying it. We do what we can to help everyone meet that standard. We cannot give up on what really works.

It must be considered that in the whole argument between abstinence/chastity and contraceptives, the anti to the former appeals to the failure of people to practice it and not to itself. It is not that abstinence/chastity does not work, it works when observed, its just that people are having a hard time observing it. To disregard it as ineffective is like saying condoms do not work because people fail to use it. And certainly the solution is not to come up with something that can go around (and at the same time increases the risk compensation) what really works.

“Is it really an oversimplication? Have you heard of Creationists who were imprisoned by the scientific community because they insisted that the world was created in 6 days about 6,000 years ago?” –Innerminds

Notice how you use the term “insisted”?

//Suppose you have a wife and your wife sleeps with other men for recreational reasons, would you consider her act as immoral only when you are a Catholic or if, because you are not Catholic would you consider it acceptable then? Would it be an arrogance of faith that and if other religions allow it, you are saying it is? There are things that are natural and innate in our being that tells us what it means to be moral and that transcends religion. It is not bad because the Church forbids, the Church forbids because it is bad.//

Are you trying to equate the immorality of sexual infidelity to the use of contraceptives? Of course I would consider the former act immoral even if I'm not a Catholic because such infidelity breaks the trust in a relationship regardless of – or even in the absence of – religion; it's the trust between two partners that's at stake here and not just the violation of Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical. By the way, all of the other religions I mentioned earlier – Baptists, Buddhists, Methodists, Mormons, Muslims, and Jews – all condemn or consider extramarital sex as unacceptable. However, only Catholics condemn the use of contraceptives. Extramarital sex definitely belongs to those immoral acts that transcend religion, but not the use of contraceptives.

//The proclamation of truth that a person believes in is not arrogance. It is not meant to devaluate other people’s belief, it is simply a proclamation of what the person believes on his own. If I follow your reasoning then it automatically follows that whatever you say that is against my faith, even to my personal opinion, is an act of arrogance because in saying what you believe is right is saying that I am wrong.//

I agree that the proclamation of what one believes to be true is not arrogance. It is the insistence that others of different faith should also follow your belief that is considered arrogance.

//Yes perhaps not enough at the present moment and situation. But I do believe it is never wise to simply lower the standard just because people are having a hard time meeting it, in the same way that we cannot simply abolish state laws because people are having a hard time obeying it. We do what we can to help everyone meet that standard. We cannot give up on what really works.//

The difference between state laws and religious laws is that the former applies to all citizens of the state while the latter only applies to the members of the particular religion. And the problem begins when religious laws try to influence state laws as if all citizens of the state belong to the same religion.

//It must be considered that in the whole argument between abstinence/chastity and contraceptives, the anti to the former appeals to the failure of people to practice it and not to itself. It is not that abstinence/chastity does not work, it works when observed, its just that people are having a hard time observing it. To disregard it as ineffective is like saying condoms do not work because people fail to use it.//

I totally agree. But the question is, which is easier to observe, total abstinence during fertile (horny) periods or the proper use of contraceptives? What I'm saying is that contraceptives are a practical solution and not just a quick fix, and they are only considered immoral by the Catholic church but not by the other major religions.

//And certainly the solution is not to come up with something that can go around (and at the same time increases the risk compensation) what really works.//

Doesn't risk compensation also apply to abstinence? If condoms increase risk compensation because people think they're safe because they use condoms 'some' of the time, won't abstinence also increase risk compensation because people think they're safe because they abstain 'some' of the time?

//Notice how you use the term “insisted”?//

Yes, and I just used it again in one of my sentences above. What about it?

“Are you trying to equate the immorality of sexual infidelity to the use of contraceptives? Of course I would consider the former act immoral even if I’m not a Catholic because such infidelity breaks the trust in a relationship regardless of – or even in the absence of – religion; it’s the trust between two partners that’s at stake here and not just the violation of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical…”-innerminds

That trust/faithfulness includes the acceptance of each other in the real meaning and sense of the word. Acceptance of another person as a spouse entails the acceptance and respect of his/her whole being …and that includes his/her fertility. A deliberate withholding of oneself (whole being minus fertility) from the other and/or the deliberate attempt to render another person/spouse infertile is, even to a non-Catholic, an act far resembling trust/faithfulness/morality in a relationship.

***

“…it’s the trust between two partners that’s at stake here and not just the violation of Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical.” -innerminds

The Church says its wrong not because it violates the 1968 encyclical. It is intrinsically wrong that is why the 1968 encyclical exists and that the Church says its wrong.

***

“I agree that the proclamation of what one believes to be true is not arrogance. It is the insistence that others of different faith should also follow your belief that is considered arrogance.” –innerminds

The Church only proposes. Everyone has much freedom as you are to not follow what the Church proposes. The last time I checked, condoms are still available and are being used by people including those who are, as they say they are, Catholic.

***

“The difference between state laws and religious laws is that the former applies to all citizens of the state while the latter only applies to the members of the particular religion. And the problem begins when religious laws try to influence state laws as if all citizens of the state belong to the same religion.” –innerminds

When the Church defends for the dignity of man (the sanctity of marriage, the right to life of all including the unborn, she does so regardless of religion.
The right of every citizen to influence state laws is a right that all citizens have, regardless of religion.

***

“I totally agree. But the question is, which is easier to observe, total abstinence during fertile (horny) periods or the proper use of contraceptives? What I’m saying is that contraceptives are a practical solution and not just a quick fix, and they are only considered immoral by the Catholic church but not by the other major religions.” –innerminds
It doesn’t address the real cause of the problem…that is immorality (e.g. sexual promiscuity).

***

Doesn’t risk compensation also apply to abstinence? If condoms increase risk compensation because people think they’re safe because they use condoms ’some’ of the time, won’t abstinence also increase risk compensation because people think they’re safe because they abstain ’some’ of the time? -innerminds

Abstinence/chastity is not for ‘some’ of the time.

***

“Yes, and I just used it again in one of my sentences above. What about it?”-innerminds
It’s a whole different story when the meaning of insistence goes by how Galileo took the heliocentric theory as if it has already been concluded and confirmed to be true at that time and furthermore using it to promote a new interpretation of the Bible.
***

//That trust/faithfulness includes the acceptance of each other in the real meaning and sense of the word. Acceptance of another person as a spouse entails the acceptance and respect of his/her whole being …and that includes his/her fertility. A deliberate withholding of oneself (whole being minus fertility) from the other and/or the deliberate attempt to render another person/spouse infertile is, even to a non-Catholic, an act far resembling trust/faithfulness/morality in a relationship.//

Unless it was a 'mutual' decision between the partners to defer procreation. If both husband and wife want to have sex with each other but still can't afford to have another baby and so they decide to use contraception, is that wrong? And in this case the husband accepts and respects 3 facts: (1) the fact that his wife is fertile; (2) the fact that his wife is still not ready or willing to bear another child; and (3) the fact that his wife would still want to enjoy sexual union with him during her fertile period. The problem with the church is that they do not accept, much less respect, Fact #3, assuming that women are robots without sexual needs and that only men enjoy sex. If one considers only the first 2 facts, abstinences seems like a good option. But if you consider Fact #3, abstinence fails and only contraception works.

//The Church says its wrong not because it violates the 1968 encyclical. It is intrinsically wrong that is why the 1968 encyclical exists and that the Church says its wrong.//

Please explain why it is intrinsically wrong.

//The Church only proposes. Everyone has much freedom as you are to not follow what the Church proposes. The last time I checked, condoms are still available and are being used by people including those who are, as they say they are, Catholic.//

I think I agree with you on this one. While the church only 'proposes' to its members not to vote politicians who promote contraception, I believe it is the politicians who are the most to blame because instead of representing their constituents, they now represent the church for fear of not getting its endorsements.

//When the Church defends for the dignity of man (the sanctity of marriage, the right to life of all including the unborn, she does so regardless of religion.//

You'll have to explain first why there is something intrinsically wrong about contraception (something that actually steps on a person's dignity) before you can defend against it. Besides, there is no 'unborn' children when a couple uses condoms, only 'unconceived'.

//The right of every citizen to influence state laws is a right that all citizens have, regardless of religion.//

I totally agree. Uhm…is Pope Paul VI a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, or Pope Benedict XVI for that matter?

//Abstinence/chastity is not for ‘some’ of the time.//

And so is contraception, according to its prescribed use.

“Unless it was a ‘mutual’ decision between the partners to defer procreation. If both husband and wife want to have sex with each other but still can’t afford to have another baby and so they decide to use contraception, is that wrong? And in this case the husband accepts and respects 3 facts: (1) the fact that his wife is fertile; (2) the fact that his wife is still not ready or willing to bear another child; and (3) the fact that his wife would still want to enjoy sexual union with him during her fertile period. The problem with the church is that they do not accept, much less respect, Fact #3, assuming that women are robots without sexual needs and that only men enjoy sex. If one considers only the first 2 facts, abstinences seems like a good option. But if you consider Fact #3, abstinence fails and only contraception works.”-innerminds

Your fact#3 is not a fact, it is a misconception. Mutual decision does not make it allowable. The Church appeals to make use of what is natural to our body.

Just a question, would you take a pill to lower your sperm count, or get a vasectomy instead of practicing some self-discipline to abstain for a few days?

***

“You’ll have to explain first why there is something intrinsically wrong about contraception (something that actually steps on a person’s dignity) before you can defend against it. Besides, there is no ‘unborn’ children when a couple uses condoms, only ‘unconceived’.”-innerminds

It violates what is natural to us, demeans the conjugal act, devaluate the value of our being…among many others.

***

I totally agree. Uhm…is Pope Paul VI a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, or Pope Benedict XVI for that matter?

The last time I checked it’s the CBCP.

***

“And so is contraception, according to its prescribed use.” –innerminds

You lost me.

//Your fact#3 is not a fact, it is a misconception. Mutual decision does not make it allowable. The Church appeals to make use of what is natural to our body.//

Are you sure? You mean to say that a woman doesn't have any sexual desires when she's fertile? From what I know, a woman is actually "hot" when she's fertile and it doesn't even take much stimulation to make her ready for sex. Sometimes she's even the one begging for sex from her partner when she's fertile. You really think women are robots, don't you?

//Just a question, would you take a pill to lower your sperm count, or get a vasectomy instead of practicing some self-discipline to abstain for a few days?//

Neither. I would use a condom. Why use drastic solutions when a simple one will do?

//It violates what is natural to us, demeans the conjugal act, devaluate the value of our being…among many others.//

By 'natural' you mean what was deemed natural by Pope Paul VI. Remember, among the major religions, only the Catholic church opposes contraception.

//The last time I checked it’s the CBCP.//

The CBCP is acting on the orders of the Vatican. What the CBCP says is simply a relayed message from the Vatican. In effect, it's actually the Vatican, through the CBCP, that is meddling with Philippine politics.

////“And so is contraception, according to its prescribed use.” –innerminds////

//You lost me.//

That was in reply to your statement, "Abstinence/chastity is not for ‘some’ of the time." What I'm saying is, in order to avoid pregnancy and significantly reduce the risk of getting STDs, contraception should be used properly AND consistently, not just for some of the time.

"Are you sure? You mean to say that a woman doesn’t have any sexual desires when she’s fertile? From what I know, a woman is actually “hot” when she’s fertile and it doesn’t even take much stimulation to make her ready for sex. Sometimes she’s even the one begging for sex from her partner when she’s fertile. You really think women are robots, don’t you?" -innerminds

The Church recognizes the desires that women, and all of us, have. What we do with those desires is what matters. Not because there is a desire we have to act on it right away without thinking about the consequences of our actions. Women, at 12, 13 and for some as early as 10, are capable of reproduction, they have their fertile days every month, and some of them feel the desire, does that automatically mean that they have to engage in a sexual act to satisfy it? There are women, who are not married, or some are not physically with their husbands at that exact moment, does that automatically mean that they have to look for someone available who can engage in a sexual act with them? The point is that we all have desires but we are human beings capable of knowing and acting responsibly, knowing when and/or if we should or should not give in to our desires. That is what the Church had been saying, to learn how to act responsibly…not by resorting to unsafe and unnatural means but by making use of what is natural to us.

***

“Neither. I would use a condom. Why use drastic solutions when a simple one will do?”-innerminds

What you call drastic is what women have to deal with.

***

“By ‘natural’ you mean what was deemed natural by Pope Paul VI. Remember, among the major religions, only the Catholic church opposes contraception.”-inerminds

It doesn’t take a lot to recognize that a plastic barrier in between and/or synthetic/foreign compounds injected to a human being to render that person infertile are not natural.

***

“The CBCP is acting on the orders of the Vatican. What the CBCP says is simply a relayed message from the Vatican. In effect, it’s actually the Vatican, through the CBCP, that is meddling with Philippine politics.” –innerminds

Whatever and however you put it, it is still the CBCP and it is not meddling. Advocacy is a right of every citizen. What they do is nothing more than what others do when they advocate against the RH Bill, for Sex Ed on children, etc…

***

“That was in reply to your statement, “Abstinence/chastity is not for ‘some’ of the time.” What I’m saying is, in order to avoid pregnancy and significantly reduce the risk of getting STDs, contraception should be used properly AND consistently, not just for some of the time.” -innerminds

The culprit for the failure of condoms is the risk compensation, not because they use condoms “some of the time” but the inability to provide protection at a 100% effective rate even when used properly…and consistently.

//The Church recognizes the desires that women, and all of us, have.//

Can you site examples, e.g., official statements from the church, that support this statement?

//What we do with those desires is what matters. Not because there is a desire we have to act on it right away without thinking about the consequences of our actions. Women, at 12, 13 and for some as early as 10, are capable of reproduction, they have their fertile days every month, and some of them feel the desire, does that automatically mean that they have to engage in a sexual act to satisfy it?//

No, because they may not yet be intellectually or emotionally mature or responsible enough to handle such sexual relations. Now compare that to a mature married woman.

//There are women, who are not married, or some are not physically with their husbands at that exact moment, does that automatically mean that they have to look for someone available who can engage in a sexual act with them?//

No. But if their husbands ARE with them, why abstain when they can use contraceptives?

//The point is that we all have desires but we are human beings capable of knowing and acting responsibly, knowing when and/or if we should or should not give in to our desires. That is what the Church had been saying, to learn how to act responsibly…not by resorting to unsafe and unnatural means but by making use of what is natural to us.//

Again, among the major religions, only the Catholic church is saying this. And this is what I meant about the Catholic church claiming to be the sole recipient and/or interpreter of 'divine revelation'. That's the arrogance I'm talking about.

////“Neither. I would use a condom. Why use drastic solutions when a simple one will do?”-innerminds////

//What you call drastic is what women have to deal with.//

Please explain. What so drastic about condoms that women have to deal with?

//It doesn’t take a lot to recognize that a plastic barrier in between and/or synthetic/foreign compounds injected to a human being to render that person infertile are not natural.//

Okay, I'll give you that. But what I'm trying to say is, what is unnatural doesn't necessarily mean immoral, and only the Catholic church says otherwise.

//Whatever and however you put it, it is still the CBCP and it is not meddling. Advocacy is a right of every citizen. What they do is nothing more than what others do when they advocate against the RH Bill, for Sex Ed on children, etc…//

One definition of 'meddling' is "to intrude into other people's affairs or business; interfere." Isn't the CBCP intruding with the affairs of the State? And as for your statement that it's still the CBCP, is the CBCP acting on its own? Is the NFP a stand unique to the CBCP, or is it because that's the stand of the Vatican?

//The culprit for the failure of condoms is the risk compensation, not because they use condoms “some of the time” but the inability to provide protection at a 100% effective rate even when used properly…and consistently//

This is from the article you quoted: 'One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least SOME of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.'

Can you site examples, e.g., official statements from the church, that support this statement?

Here is one among many. The whole encyclical below explains it at length. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encycli…

***/

“No, because they may not yet be intellectually or emotionally mature or responsible enough to handle such sexual relations. Now compare that to a mature married woman.” -innerminds

A matured married woman would know how to responsibly act on her desires, that it is not all about the pleasures of sex but that there is a higher purpose and that there are consequences.

***

“No. But if their husbands ARE with them, why abstain when they can use contraceptives?” –innerminds

This has been already addressed before. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encycli…

***

//The point is that we all have desires but we are human beings capable of knowing and acting responsibly, knowing when and/or if we should or should not give in to our desires. That is what the Church had been saying, to learn how to act responsibly…not by resorting to unsafe and unnatural means but by making use of what is natural to us.//

“Again, among the major religions, only the Catholic church is saying this. And this is what I meant about the Catholic Church claiming to be the sole recipient and/or interpreter of ‘divine revelation’. That’s the arrogance I’m talking about.” -innerminds

Could you please point out what is wrong with what the Church is saying about desires and responsibility? An expression of one’s belief is not arrogance, in the same way that your comments and articles expressing yours are not to be taken as arrogance…unless you are if you think the Church is.

***

“Okay, I’ll give you that. But what I’m trying to say is, what is unnatural doesn’t necessarily mean immoral, and only the Catholic church says otherwise.” –innerminds
Yes, what is unnatural doesn’t necessarily mean immoral, however, not in this particular case. Yes, it is unfortunate that only the Catholic Church says it is immoral but not because she is the only one doesn’t mean that she is wrong.

***

“One definition of ‘meddling’ is “to intrude into other people’s affairs or business; interfere.” Isn’t the CBCP intruding with the affairs of the State? And as for your statement that it’s still the CBCP, is the CBCP acting on its own? Is the NFP a stand unique to the CBCP, or is it because that’s the stand of the Vatican?” -innerminds

It is advocacy, nothing more than those who advocate for artificial contraceptives. Whether the stand of CBCP is unique or not in comparison to anything outside the republic it is the CBCP that advocates and the members of the CBCP are all citizens of the Republic.

***

“This is from the article you quoted: ‘One reason is “risk compensation.” That is, when people think they’re made safe by using condoms at least SOME of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.’” -innerminds

-My mistake, comment should read “…not only because they use condoms “some of the time.”

Source of the excerpts below: http://monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/risk-…

““Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”
Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

-In any case, between contraceptives and abstinence, given the condition of “prescribed use”, the former remains to be lacking of 100% effectiveness.

//Here is one among many. The whole encyclical below explains it at length. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encycli…

Tl;dr. Could you please quote a few pertinent passages here?

//A matured married woman would know how to responsibly act on her desires, that it is not all about the pleasures of sex but that there is a higher purpose and that there are consequences.//

And you're saying that this 'higher purpose' is procreation in line with "God's plan"? I must remind you that this is a freethinking site, so until God shows himself we are not going to take an encyclical written more than 40 years ago by a pope who's now long dead as divine revelation.

//This has been already addressed before. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encycli…

Again, tl;dr. Please post the pertinent passages here instead.

//Could you please point out what is wrong with what the Church is saying about desires and responsibility? An expression of one’s belief is not arrogance, in the same way that your comments and articles expressing yours are not to be taken as arrogance…unless you are if you think the Church is.//

Okay, my bad. While I don't respect the church's doctrine, I do respect their RIGHT to preach it since that is freedom of religion.

//Yes, what is unnatural doesn’t necessarily mean immoral, however, not in this particular case. Yes, it is unfortunate that only the Catholic Church says it is immoral but not because she is the only one doesn’t mean that she is wrong.//

And why is it immoral? Because it violates "God's plan" as interpreted by Pope Paul VI?

//It is advocacy, nothing more than those who advocate for artificial contraceptives. Whether the stand of CBCP is unique or not in comparison to anything outside the republic it is the CBCP that advocates and the members of the CBCP are all citizens of the Republic.//

Okay, it is advocacy. If there is anyone to blame, it is the politicians who suck up to the CBCP for endorsements and not the bishops themselves because they are only doing their jobs and it is their moral obligation to advocate their dogma. Thanks for the idea, Reynor. This will be the topic on my next article and I look forward to your comments. 🙂 But still, it is also meddling based on the definition I posted.

//““Theoretically, condoms ought to work,” he explained to CNA, “and theoretically, some condom use ought to be better than no condom use, but that’s theoretically.”
Condom proponents often cite the lack of condom education as the main culprit for higher AIDS rates in Africa but Green disagrees.

After spending 25 years promoting condoms for family planning purposes in Africa, he insists that he’s quite familiar with condom promotion. Yet, he claims that “anyone who worked in family planning knew that if you needed to prevent a pregnancy, say the woman will die, you don’t recommend a condom.”

Green recalls that when the AIDS epidemic hit Africa, the “Industry” began using AIDS as a “dual purpose” marketing strategy to get more funding for condom distribution. This, he claims, effectively took “something that was a 2nd or 3rd grade device for avoiding unwanted pregnancies” and turned it into the “best weapon we [had] against AIDS.”

-In any case, between contraceptives and abstinence, given the condition of “prescribed use”, the former remains to be lacking of 100% effectiveness.//

I agree. Now try implementing abstinence-only in Africa, or any country for that matter. Condoms are not perfect, but it is a more practical solution than abstinence. Condoms may have failed in Africa, but that is because it isn't used properly due to their culture of having multiple, long-term/regular partners, and using condoms is taken an a lack of trust towards the partner.

“Could you please quote a few pertinent passages here?” -innerminds

“11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.''”

“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.”

“12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman.”

“…they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

You said, "The Church recognizes the desires that women, and all of us, have", to which I asked you to cite official statements from the church to support this claim, and you cited the following:

“11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, “noble and worthy.””

– This doesn't mention anything about sexual desires; it only says that sexual activity is noble and worthy – with emphasis on procreation.

“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives. The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.”

– Same with this one. No mention of sexual desires, only procreation.

“12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

– same

“The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman.”

– same

“…they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.”

– Almost, but not quite. The focus here is love, while sex ("married intimacy") is only used an expression of such love. There is no mention here about a woman's sexual desires per se.

All the passages you quoted are not enough to prove that the church recognizes that women do have sexual desires. It seems to me that for the church women are nothing more than machines for reproduction.

"All the passages you quoted are not enough to prove that the church recognizes that women do have sexual desires. It seems to me that for the church women are nothing more than machines for reproduction." -innerminds

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)2362:
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them….

This is the continuation of the passage you quoted:

"At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation."

What is "just moderation"? If both husband and wife have high libidos and they desire to have sex 3 times a day, is that wrong? Obviously the church does not acknowledge this desire.

All the passages you quoted are not enough to prove that the church recognizes that women do have sexual desires. It seems to me that for the church women are nothing more than machines for reproduction.-innerminds

You are entitled to your own opinion, of course… however in this case it is not the same as what the Church really teaches.

"What is “just moderation”? If both husband and wife have high libidos and they desire to have sex 3 times a day, is that wrong? Obviously the church does not acknowledge this desire."-innerminds

A just moderation is a standard by which both parties have established, a frequency that puts both of the parties away from harm and abuse. If a call for just moderation and the statement of "…spouses do nothing evil in seeking [this]pleasure and enjoyment…" in a conjugal act are for you a denial of what the Church considers to be noble, that is up to you but your conclusion is not what the Church teaches. In the end, you are still claiming that the Church is wrong… basing it on your own misconception rather than what the Church really teaches.

//You are entitled to your own opinion, of course… however in this case it is not the same as what the Church really teaches.//

Okay, although it would be nice if you could quote here the teachings of the church that clearly show that they acknowledge women's sexual urges instead of just telling me that my interpretation of their dogma is wrong.

//A just moderation is a standard by which both parties have established, a frequency that puts both of the parties away from harm and abuse.//

If this is really what the church means by "just moderation" then I have no problem with it. However, can you quote some passages from those encyclicals to show that this is indeed what they mean and not just your own interpretation?

//…your conclusion is not what the Church teaches. In the end, you are still claiming that the Church is wrong… basing it on your own misconception rather than what the Church really teaches.//

Again, can you quote some passages from those encyclicals to show that I have misconceptions about the church's teachings?

//You are entitled to your own opinion, of course… however in this case it is not the same as what the Church really teaches.//

“Okay, although it would be nice if you could quote here the teachings of the church that clearly show that they acknowledge women’s sexual urges instead of just telling me that my interpretation of their dogma is wrong.

Again, can you quote some passages from those encyclicals to show that I have misconceptions about the church’s teachings?”-innerminds

Your claim is that of the Church’s supposed denial of women’s sexual urges, the whole encyclical is centered upon the call for respect of human life in regards to the conjugal act and respect for the dignity of spouses (both male and female). If the nobility of the conjugal act that the whole encyclical has been confirming is not enough to recognize the Church’s high regard to our God-given desires I don’t know what will.

If it would help you may also check Pope John Paul II-Theology of the Body, all of its 700+ pages dedicated to the study of human sexuality- both male and female, and how they fit in the understanding of the Divine Love.

***

//A just moderation is a standard by which both parties have established, a frequency that puts both of the parties away from harm and abuse.//

“If this is really what the church means by “just moderation” then I have no problem with it. However, can you quote some passages from those encyclicals to show that this is indeed what they mean and not just your own interpretation?” -innerminds

If I may ask, what other meaning/interpretation of “just moderation” do you have in mind?

***

//…the whole encyclical is centered upon the call for respect of human life in regards to the conjugal act and respect for the dignity of spouses (both male and female). If the nobility of the conjugal act that the whole encyclical has been confirming is not enough to recognize the Church’s high regard to our God-given desires I don’t know what will.//

The encyclical focuses more on the 'purpose' of sex – which is solely for procreation – and the pleasure associated with sex is portrayed as merely incidental.

//If it would help you may also check Pope John Paul II-Theology of the Body, all of its 700+ pages dedicated to the study of human sexuality- both male and female, and how they fit in the understanding of the Divine Love.//

Tl;dr. It would be a courtesy to your 'opponent' to summarize your arguments in a few sentences.

//If I may ask, what other meaning/interpretation of “just moderation” do you have in mind?//

Perhaps the church meant that sex should not be done too often that both husband and wife would enjoy it too much and get focused on their sensual desires and forget about the spiritual obligations?

The encyclical focuses more on the ‘purpose’ of sex – which is solely for procreation – and the pleasure associated with sex is portrayed as merely incidental.-innerminds

The pleasure associated with sex is not “merely incidental”. We believe that it is an intentional gift from God, hence, the desires that we have, is considered noble and worthy- so noble that God bestowed on it the responsibility for the generation of mankind, so worthy that he chose it to be the way that life is transmitted. Its function, however, is not solely procreative but also unitive.

“12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.” –Humanae Vitae

***

//If it would help you may also check Pope John Paul II-Theology of the Body, all of its 700+ pages dedicated to the study of human sexuality- both male and female, and how they fit in the understanding of the Divine Love.//

It would be a courtesy to your ‘opponent’ to summarize your arguments in a few sentences.-innerminds

Yes it would be but the point is that claiming that the Church does not recognize the desires is wrong. In fact, the 700-page book dedicated to human sexuality is only one among many.

***

“Perhaps the church meant that sex should not be done too often that both husband and wife would enjoy it too much and get focused on their sensual desires and forget about the spiritual obligations?”-Innerminds

It could be that too or could be not. The point is that the Church did not prescribed an exact number of times per day for a reason that every person is different and for that reason spouses are to be free to gauge on their own, no one would be able to know other than themselves …reason will tell us, Catholic or not, that it is always good, and this is true for all not only the conjugal act, to engage with just moderation.

It's for this reason that instead of being ooutright hostile against religion (at least the moderate and liberals within the community), I think freethinking should be more against unreasonable dogma in any form.

innerminds,
thanks for bringing that out.

not all theists are fundies…and not all fundies are theists (meaning implied).

atheistikaw!
Reding the Bible…I did, whats wrong?
I have investigated the History of Christianity and remained a christian, what is that to you?

current moral standards??
moral standards modeled from?

innerminds,
reason can become unreasonable when arrogance comes in…it's good as obstinacy.

atheistako,
ancient savages? are you sure? define savagery muna. may nasulat ka na bang libro??

atheistikaw,
are you sure? ancient savages wrote the BIBLE? any proof??

you said: You are right, FAITH includes REASON. Because FAITH is full of UNREASONABLE hopes, beliefs and fears.
Unreasonable hopes like what?

faith is "pisteuo" in greek, and it essentially includes "reason".

If you want to live your life based on a book written by ancient savages, that's your choice.

You are right, FAITH includes REASON. Because FAITH is full of UNREASONABLE hopes, beliefs and fears.

I agree. As St. Thomas Aquinas said, supernatural truths should not be subjected to rational discussion, since they were revealed truths, so human reason alone is insufficient to understand this truth.

Two words: CHERRY PICKING

@ako

what do you mean?

if an analysis of various readings is "cherry picking", then all of science is cherry picking.

I totally agree with GabbyD. A lot of what he is saying of and about religion is rubbish but we may not be able to understand all of them so our own knowledge can be categorized as the same level of nonsense, so in the end, we are really back to zero. It's impossible to just know based on our own understanding which one is accurate and has the blessing of our Lord that is why it's always better to just pray to GOD that we don't get led astray.

The bible cannot be interpreted without the acceptance that it's the truth. If you start reading it trying to find faults, you will miss even the most obvious truths, like gravity!

I'm at a loss for words. *facepalm*

if you've already read the bible, also read the bible as history and compare both.

And you evangelize/testify and act as 'witness' to something based on hearsay after hearsay of stories passed on and translated from generation to generation?

Hearsay is not acceptable in the courts of law. Yet in the practice of your faith, you rely on hearsay and take it as the Word of God for guidance on the rather important things in your life. Did God talk to you and directly gave you instructions? If yes, then that is divine revelation. But if everything you 'know' about God comes from the Bible and the doctrines of the church, that is not divine revelation, that is hearsay.

@innerminds

yes. this is a process called 'evangelization'. testimony is provided, and the implicit assumption is that there is truth there. hence, there is danger here.

luckily, there are ways to discern deceit.

hhmmm… first, and this is probably irrelevant to you, but if you have a problem with written information passed down through the time, then you have a problem with the study of history, anthropology in general. in addition to archeology, this is the ONLY way to get information about the past. christianity uses these methods all the time in understanding what happened 2k years ago.

it is undeniable that God operates thru history, so its ok to look at history to see it. i also have to say, that God can talk to us now, via prayer — got no objections to that, but it needs to pass a consistency test as well.

second, its not hearsay — the idea was that there were witnessess to the life and death of christ. thats not hearsay.

yes. i wonder what the point of using the word 'hearsay' is…

first, and this is important, why use the concept of hearsay is what is obviously not a juridical matter? why are we forcing a square peg into a round hole?

dont get me wrong — i like thought experiments. but lets make sure there is a prize at the end.

next, before we use the concept, lets agree on what it means. i agree sorta agree with your definition of hearsay. but its incomplete.

a specific example is useful: "the case of the color of kay's car"

Objective: we are interested in knowing the color of kay's car. if i say to you, "Kay told me her car is blue". if you conclude the color is blue, you believed in hearsay. If i say to you "i read in kay's blog that her car is blue", if you conclude its blue, its hearsay. BUT (and this is key) if you conclude that i read a blog that says its blue, that is NOT hearsay.

i could have used a biblical example, but i like blue cars. 🙂

oh, forgot to add. if this is true: " Yes, I have a problem with information passed down from person to person because the reliability and accuracy of such information is already compromised."

then you know that most of our information is recorded about the ancient world, and to a lesser extent the modern world, is from oral tradition written/drawn. be careful you are not making too strong a statement. you're liable to throw away all of history and anthropology.

Kate's blue car is a perfect analogy:

"If i say to you “i read in kay’s blog that her car is blue”, if you conclude its blue, its hearsay. BUT (and this is key) if you conclude that i read a blog that says its blue, that is NOT hearsay."

I agree with you that it is NOT hearsay to say that you read a blog, but to say that Kay's car is blue based on what you read in the blog – that IS hearsay.

Let's take a Biblical example:

We read at Luke 19:27 that Jesus said: "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me." Now to say that we read this in the Bible is not hearsay, but the contents of the Bible (including this verse) is hearsay, unless Jesus himself told you directly.

@ Gabby: Yes, I have a problem with information passed down from person to person because the reliability and accuracy of such information is already compromised.

You said that "it is undeniable that God operates thru history". Care to state some historical facts to support this claim?

You said that "God can talk to us now, via prayer". Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I understand, we talk to God via prayer, but not vice versa.

You said that "its not hearsay — the idea was that there were witnessess to the life and death of christ. thats not hearsay." Let's take a look at Wikipedia's definition of 'hearsay':

"Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence."

Now unless you were there to witness firsthand the life, teachings, and miracles of Jesus Christ, then what you believe in is all hearsay.

Now as far as history of the ancient world is concerned, these are all hearsay, so it is not surprising for history books to disagree among themselves. However, the good thing is that we do not live our lives based on what kings said thousands of years ago, so it doesn't matter how accurate our information is regarding ancient civilizations. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about the Bible and other 'holy books' because many theists take it as the actual Word of God and live their lives based on what was written.

A glaringly obvious difference between "hearsay" in world history and "hearsay" in the Bible is that history makes no fantastic claims. What's so extraordinary about Ceasar crossing the Rubicon? Or of Napoleon being defeated at Waterloo? Those are much more believable than a guy who claims to be the son of an all powerful god.

@twin

thats not the point. the point is that both history and theology use the same techniques. if you dispute the use of it in one, you do so for the other.

@innerminds

hhmmm… i actually agree with what you said, so i'm confused as to your last sentence means.

lets me be explicit.

if i say "i read in the bible that jesus said X", and you believed X based solely on this, you are right, its hearsay. although i'm still lost why hearsay is relevant, but i'll go with it…

but, that doesnt matter. the bible is an eye-witness account of what happened in jesus' life and times. in other words, you don't have to believe me — read the bible!

oops. @harmless pala…

@GabbyD,

That's not even an answer at all. You didn't say anything about how it was revealed or communicated to you by your deity.

This is exactly the kind of irrational, arrogant, and cocksure statements that believers make about their faith.

i dont get it.

like i said jesus's life, death and teachings. i dont think "that reply of yours can be used by ANY religion to support their own god"…

unless everyone became a xtian last night?…

@GabbyD,

I was referring to this:

"anyway, the original comment is the important one. humans didnt seek god out; God sought us out and communicates with us.

so there is no claim of extra-ordinary ability by humans. we know because we were told.

moreover, we KNOW we dont have extra-ordinary knowledge, and we ask for guidance ALL THE TIME. "

gladly. as a christian, God reveals himself to me through the life, death and teachings of jesus christ, and by the magisterium of the Church.

@harmless

hmm, now i'm confused. i'm asked a direct question about revelation and i've given a straight answer that any catholic who knows will say.

how is this not an answer? its crystal clear, is it not?

anyway, the original comment is the important one. humans didnt seek god out; God sought us out and communicates with us.

so there is no claim of extra-ordinary ability by humans. we know because we were told.

moreover, we KNOW we dont have extra-ordinary knowledge, and we ask for guidance ALL THE TIME.

thats it.

@GabbyD,

Again, that's a non-answer. That reply of yours can be used by ANY religion to support their own god. Give me an answer that shows me that your particular Catholic god is the one who gave knowledge to humanity.

@Harmless

yes, not being a member of other faiths, i suppose the same answer can be given.

but whats your point?

my point is exceedingly simple: the blog article saying faith is not humble is wrong. it IS humble, because the knowledge is not from man, nor can man figure it out for himself, but is given man.

if this is true for all religions, that only bolsters my point — not only is christianity humble, by any definition of the word, but ALL religions are.

i dont get it… "more recently atheist and agnostic scientists" were given by god? who claimed this? i didnt.

but i'm glad u raised it, coz at least we are back to the original idea: what does humility MEAN?

btw, let me say now that a contest of who/what is more humble is ironic on so many levels!!!

i think we can agree on what humility means: its the realization that we dont know everything, or know less than what we should.

i posit — and that people of faith are humble by that definition.

now, since there are atheists here, i dont expect people to BELIEVE any religious argument.

thats a waste of typing!

but, we can definitely converse about the meaning of humility, and about how we can get information about events that happened before we were born.

@twin

why is it a circular argument? is it circular to say: "I believe jesus said X because the bible said jesus said X?"

if so, then we call it circular when "I believe Lincoln said X because a transcriber quoted Lincoln saying X".

is this what you want to say?

In the case of Lincoln, if the transcriber says that Lincoln said X, AND there is empirical, SOLID evidence from an outside source that backs up Transcriber's recording of Lincoln saying X, then it is not circular reasoning.

In the case of Jesus saying X, however, asserting that He said X without presenting evidence other than just the Bible, would be circular reasoning.

@GabbyD

Claiming that a religion is true by saying "because my faith's book says so" is not hearsay, to be fair.

It's circular reasoning.

@twin

exactly! thats what theologians do! they look for the best evidence possible, and work from there.

My problem is that too much of the bible is left to the interpretation of the reader.