Spirituality
28 Feb 05
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by geniusI'm sure marriage was introduced out of financial motives. Nothing to do with sex. No other mammals need to marry, do they?
but would you eat if you didn't have to? if you never felt hungry, would you feel the need to eat? if you were never thirsty, woudl you drink? (if there were other ways of consuming alcohol, that is...).
and sex marriage is safe. condoms are not. condoms break. but with marriage, it's up to you. it's not some unreliable device. and don't get me ...[text shortened]... inst condoms, but that doesn't mean all churches are. heck, it doesn't mean all rc's are...😛
01 Mar 05
But just because you are in a marriage does not mean that you have not brought an STI to that marriage. Either partner may have had sex before and carried an infection. People are (undeniably) just human and as such are prone to making mistakes, it is just your sort of attitude that progenerates STIs. The rise of AIDS in places like Africa is due, in part, to religion causing a lack of education of people in methods of contraception. Condoms are 99.9% effective, human adherence to any form of moral or religious code of practice is far lower than this. In terms of birth control, the calendar method is just ridiculously poor and the reason is that people are animals. They desire to have sex and often err from what they are supposedly meant to do, religious or not.
In a perfect world, perhaps marriage would be a good way to combat STI, but alas we do not ive in a perfect world and it is naive to think that the reality of marriage is anything like you suggest.
As to cooking, if I did not have a desire to eat I would not cook, but I do, I have an inherant desire to do so. The same goes for sex, every human has a desire to have sex built into their makeup, to enjoy sex. Why do you think that there is such a massive concentration of nerves in the sexually receptive parts of the body? You were built to do it, to deny this is to refuse to accept the body's functional purpose.
01 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by geniusListen to this: Have you ever heard of a Catholic who told his one night stand or the hooker he was paying a visit that night he could not use a condom because he wanted to obey the Church ........
but would you eat if you didn't have to? if you never felt hungry, would you feel the need to eat? if you were never thirsty, woudl you drink? (if there were other ways of consuming alcohol, that is...).
and sex marriage is safe. ...[text shortened]... t mean all churches are. heck, it doesn't mean all rc's are...😛
... but there are millions out there really believing such stuff. If the RC Church would allow condoms it would stop aids ...... how stupid can one get ? If one doesn't wish to obey the Church in having only one partner then how on earth is one inclined to "obey" the Church not using condoms hopping from one to another ..... Can somebody explain this phenomenon ?
01 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you knew something about the situation in Africa you would find less AIDS related diseases in areas that are considered Roman Catholic. Can you explain this ?
But just because you are in a marriage does not mean that you have not brought an STI to that marriage. Either partner may have had sex before and carried an infection. People are (undeniably) just human and as such are prone to making m ...[text shortened]... o deny this is to refuse to accept the body's functional purpose.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusAm I committing abortion if I spill my seed where it can't become fused with an egg to become a foetus? Why do you draw the line at the foetal stage? Would you consider it ridiculous if somebody tried to force you to believe that wasting semen is murder?
My view? Don't have sex unless you're willing to have a child. If God feels you can handle a child, He will send you one. If not, He won't. That's the only kind of abortion I support.
We're not animals. Sex is not a requesite for life. Save it for the sanctity and stability of marriage.
We're not animals? Sex is not a "requesite" for life? This is more christian crap. Last time I looked in the mirror, I differed from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
I don't know what your sunday school teacher told you about the birds and the bees, but I can tell you that the human race (along with any other animal species) would be toast without sex.
D
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeInterestingly, Islamic African countries have the lowest infection rates.
Listen to this: Have you ever heard of a Catholic who told his one night stand or the hooker he was paying a visit that night he could not use a condom because he wanted to obey the Church ........
... but there are millions out there really believing such stuff. If the RC Church would allow condoms it would stop aids ...... how stupid can one get ? I ...[text shortened]... using condoms hopping from one to another ..... Can somebody explain this phenomenon ?
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by Starrmanbut that's the point, in that if they didn't have sexc before, then it's 100% safe. even if they exchange it between them, it is not going to spread. it's quite intresting, there is a hall at my uni that had an outbreak of an sti that begins with an s but i can't spell a few years ago...
But just because you are in a marriage does not mean that you have not brought an STI to that marriage. Either partner may have had sex before and carried an infection. People are (undeniably) just human and as such are prone to making mistakes, it is just your sort of attitude that progenerates STIs. The rise of AIDS in places like Africa is due, in par ...[text shortened]... y? You were built to do it, to deny this is to refuse to accept the body's functional purpose.
and my point was that what if we didn't have a desire for sex?
and ivanhoe - i'm not overly sure what your point was...but the church is not the bible. the bible says, i think, nothing about contraceptives...
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by pcaspianPC,
Originally posted by belgianfreak
[b]
And what scares me more is I now expect a handfull of people here ot throw in their support for these guys 🙁
Just curious, assume your wife (daughter, mother ect) is famous because she gave alot of money to charity. (I am trying to convey that she didn't attempt to become famous, but because of her ge ...[text shortened]... even militant fanatic, should they go to the extreme and prostest against this play ?
pc
[/b]
Sorry but I didn't see the play so I can't comment on it. My reference to Christian Voices protest to was intended for people to place their previous activities not as a specific comment as to whether or not this action was justified. My concern is at their other planned activities.
If I get chance to see the play or at leaset read a few reviews I'll get back to you.
Jon
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by pcaspianAnother argument (that I don't claim to know much about) is: what is the difference between a bunch of cancer cells & a foetus? We wouldn't hesitate to remove one. One answer to this is that if one can survive on it's own then it is alive - therrefore a foetus that is incapable of living outside of the mother is not yet alive.
Originally posted by wib
[b]We're not talking about shaving here bro. I'm talking about defining whether or not a woman is taking a human life when she has an abortion. And if she is taking a human life, then WHEN did it become a life?
That argument is commonly referred to as the bearded man argument. Simply put, there is no particular ...[text shortened]... lly killing a human organism, a potentially fully fledge child. There is no sugar-coating that. [/b]
I've thought about the 'potential life' argument before. If we claim it is a crime to not let a foetus develop to it's full potential how is this different to not ensuring that every potential life comes about by ensuring that every egg a woman produces is fertalised? It too is potential life that by our inaction will never be.
This aside, I was not arguing the merits of abortion, rather expressing my concern about a group that is planning to use terror tactics to force their views on the UK in the name of God.
01 Mar 05
Originally posted by sasquatch672You don't have to be a "holy-roller" to avoid being a monster.
This is one of those questions, isn't it? Before I give my answer, I have to say that I was born in June 1972 to a girl a day shy of her 17th birthday. She was unmarried, very very smart - smart enough to get a college scholarship, and very scared. She could have aborted me but didn't.
So when does life begin? Well, the splitting of cells upon ...[text shortened]... ling for your head. Why is it different to chop up a 22-week-old baby than a 36-week-old baby?