[W: #211] What do you know about sex, pregnancy, and childbirth?

[Lursa]

That is incorrect...they do not teach that it is ONLY for procreation.

Again, you are missing the entire context of what I've been writing. It doesnt really matter. If you cant understand it, the multiple times I've written it, oh well.

 

[Lursa]

I posted this link yesterday and will now quote from it:

Question:​

Did the Church ever teach sex was only for procreation ?

Answer:​

No, the Church has never taught conjugal love was only for procreation. If that were the case, the Church would have always banned from marriage those couples capable of engaging in love and yet, for reasons of sterility on the part of either spouse, not able to conceive. In addition, that’s typically something spouses don’t know until they’re married, especially for most of Church history.

In addition, and of greater testimonial weight, if the Church taught conjugal love was only for procreation, the Church would have banned all conjugal love after a wife reaches menopause. But the Church has never taught such.

The Church follows divine revelation, which notes that conjugal love is for a man and a woman to become one in marriage (Gen. 2:23-24), and thus for mutual love and support, and also for the procreation and education of children (Gen. 1:26-27). The Church continues to affirm this teaching (CCC 1643ff.).

Did the Church Ever Teach Sex Was Only for Procreation?

The history of Church teachings shows that the Church has always supported conjugal love for more than just procreation, though that is an important part.

www.catholic.com

LOL that's from "Catholic.com" and I wrote several reasons in previous posts why there was no reason to forbid sex within marriage for any reason. Like 'accidents' still happen, even after supposed menopause. And that there was no way historically to know who was infertile. But you never responded directly to any of that.

So some statement from the Church itself that also doesnt even recognize those examples is...not remotely complete or unbiased. I'm speaking as a non-Catholic who has studied the RCC...do you have any such distance or are you going with what the RCC has taught you? All you just did was quote their own party line.

 

[ClaraD]

LOL that's from "Catholic.com" and I wrote several reasons in previous posts why there was no reason to forbid sex within marriage for any reason. Like 'accidents' still happen, even after supposed menopause. And that there was no way historically to know who was infertile. But you never responded directly to any of that.

So some statement from the Church itself that also doesnt even recognize those examples is...not remotely complete or unbiased. I'm speaking as a non-Catholic who has studied the RCC...do you have any such distance or are you going with what the RCC has taught you? All you just did was quote their own party line.

I would say that Catholic.com is a pretty good proof of what is and isn't in the Catholic church...especially since they are the ones to know what their doctrine is and isn't.
Yes, the Church teaches that hormonal or artificial contraception is sin....but not all Catholics see eye to eye with the Church on this....like I pointed out...the Protestant church historically taught segregation and slavery were good...and that marrying outside your race is a sin.
The Southern Baptist religion was founded in 1845. The reason they were founded was that Northern Baptists refused to appoint slave masters as missionaries.

 

[ClaraD]

Again, you are missing the entire context of what I've been writing. It doesnt really matter. If you cant understand it, the multiple times I've written it, oh well.

I understood you 100%...you said that they teach that sex is only for procreation....and both I and another Catholic @nota bene are telling you that you are wrong and have used documents from the Catholic church to prove that to you.....and you laugh it off as if that is not proof.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Give me a freaking break, Lursa.

If you are unwilling to answer that question, she just prove you wrong by asking it.

 

[choiceone]

I would say that Catholic.com is a pretty good proof of what is and isn't in the Catholic church...especially since they are the ones to know what their doctrine is and isn't.
Yes, the Church teaches that hormonal or artificial contraception is sin....but not all Catholics see eye to eye with the Church on this....like I pointed out...the Protestant church historically taught segregation and slavery were good...and that marrying outside your race is a sin.
The Southern Baptist religion was founded in 1845. The reason they were founded was that Northern Baptists refused to appoint slave masters as missionaries.

You seem capable of commenting on Catholicism and the Southern and Northern Baptists, but you can't reasonably make generalizations about the "Protestant church" as you do here. First, because there wasn't just one of them, and second, because history has made it obvious that they absolutely didn't agree with each other.

In just the US, it's worth noting that there were a good many marriages of so-called "white people" and so-called "Native Americans." Here in NY alone, there were many, many people of Scottish background who made such marriages, including missionaries. This was not considered a sin. In fact, some people were very proud of their mixed background. It produced some amazingly important elite scholars of comparative linguistics, comparative mythology, etc.

Moreover, some of the colonies/states never had anti-miscegenation laws. One was RI. Another was Vermont, when that region separated from New Hampshire and became a separate state.

Again, huge numbers of people in the Northeast were against slavery, beginning with the Quakers, before we even had an American Revolution. They participated in fighting against it till it ended. So-called "whites" provided quite a few of the sites on the Underground RR in NY, which have long been tourist sites, too.

As for segregation, what on earth do you mean? As late as the early nineteen-sixties, in the Chicago area, when we saw on TV how people in Southern states behaved, with their separate drinking fountains and swimming pools and restaurants, we belly-laughed in horror as if they were aliens from outer space.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You seem capable of commenting on Catholicism and the Southern and Northern Baptists, but you can't reasonably make generalizations about the "Protestant church" as you do here. First, because there wasn't just one of them, and second, because history has made it obvious that they absolutely didn't agree with each other.

FYI the "Northern Baptists" later changed their name to American Baptists.

Historical Differences between Northern and Southern Baptist | Difference Between

Historical Differences between Northern and Southern Baptist Early Origins of the Baptist Movement The history of the Baptist movement in America closely follows the major events that defined America as a nation. The growth of the church is mirrored and influenced by the original settler’s...

www.differencebetween.net

 

[Scrabaholic]

er...their doctrine is their doctrine. Them making up stuff like Popes is 'real.' They still say birth control is a sin..right? And that sex is a sin outside of marriage? And they dont accept divorce? If they do now...it's still part of their dogma and they are attempting to skirt it to keep members in more modern times.

I already acknowledged other Christian religions had their hypocrisies. But right now we're discussing the granddaddy of torture, greed, coercion, repression and misogyny.

They can get divorced but cannot remarry in the church.

 

[ClaraD]

You seem capable of commenting on Catholicism and the Southern and Northern Baptists, but you can't reasonably make generalizations about the "Protestant church" as you do here. First, because there wasn't just one of them, and second, because history has made it obvious that they absolutely didn't agree with each other.

In just the US, it's worth noting that there were a good many marriages of so-called "white people" and so-called "Native Americans." Here in NY alone, there were many, many people of Scottish background who made such marriages, including missionaries. This was not considered a sin. In fact, some people were very proud of their mixed background. It produced some amazingly important elite scholars of comparative linguistics, comparative mythology, etc.

Moreover, some of the colonies/states never had anti-miscegenation laws. One was RI. Another was Vermont, when that region separated from New Hampshire and became a separate state.

Again, huge numbers of people in the Northeast were against slavery, beginning with the Quakers, before we even had an American Revolution. They participated in fighting against it till it ended. So-called "whites" provided quite a few of the sites on the Underground RR in NY, which have long been tourist sites, too.

As for segregation, what on earth do you mean? As late as the early nineteen-sixties, in the Chicago area, when we saw on TV how people in Southern states behaved, with their separate drinking fountains and swimming pools and restaurants, we belly-laughed in horror as if they were aliens from outer space.

People are now proud of it, but it wasn't always that way...and to the extreme of it being illegal

 

[ClaraD]

They can get divorced but cannot remarry in the church.

Unless the marriage is annulled

 

[Lursa]

I would say that Catholic.com is a pretty good proof of what is and isn't in the Catholic church...especially since they are the ones to know what their doctrine is and isn't.
Yes, the Church teaches that hormonal or artificial contraception is sin....but not all Catholics see eye to eye with the Church on this....like I pointed out...the Protestant church historically taught segregation and slavery were good...and that marrying outside your race is a sin.
The Southern Baptist religion was founded in 1845. The reason they were founded was that Northern Baptists refused to appoint slave masters as missionaries.

The bold is the main point I'm trying to make here. However Catholic doctrine is still Catholic doctrine...and I cannot separate it from its violent, torture-filled, political, repressive, coercive, misogynistic, avaricious past...and the avarice still reigns. If it divested itself of most of its assets, it could cure world hunger. Yet its top level appointees wear fancy robes, have the best food and wine, live among pieces of art, sleep on silk sheets, have servants, etc etc etc.

And there are posters here that still endorse much of that historical doctrine. Like marital rape. It still has a grave negative impact on the world. See: Amy Coney Barrett.

 

[Lursa]

I understood you 100%...you said that they teach that sex is only for procreation....and both I and another Catholic @nota bene are telling you that you are wrong and have used documents from the Catholic church to prove that to you.....and you laugh it off as if that is not proof.

And I refuted that. If you dont want to accept it, dont. Neither of you directly did so tho...you're just saying: Look at Catholic.com In "practice" that's exactly what it was.

 

[Lursa]

They can get divorced but cannot remarry in the church.

Yeah. But it's still a sin, right? Can they do their Hail Mary's and still enter Heaven? (I dont know the answer to that)

 

[ClaraD]

And I refuted that. If you dont want to accept it, dont. Neither of you directly did so tho...you're just saying: Look at Catholic.com In "practice" that's exactly what it was.

No, you didn't refute anything.

 

[ClaraD]

Yeah. But it's still a sin, right? Can they do their Hail Mary's and still enter Heaven? (I dont know the answer to that)

Divorce isn't the sin...you can still receive sacrament....remarriage is the sin...adultery is what it is considered per the bible. There are exceptions, thus you have to receive an annulment via the Vatican.

 

[ClaraD]

The bold is the main point I'm trying to make here. However Catholic doctrine is still Catholic doctrine...and I cannot separate it from its violent, torture-filled, political, repressive, coercive, misogynistic, avaricious past...and the avarice still reigns. If it divested itself of most of its assets, it could cure world hunger. Yet its top level appointees wear fancy robes, have the best food and wine, live among pieces of art, sleep on silk sheets, have servants, etc etc etc.

And there are posters here that still endorse much of that historical doctrine. Like marital rape. It still has a grave negative impact on the world. See: Amy Coney Barrett.

but you can somehow ignore the violate and racist pasts of other churches?

 

[Lursa]

No, you didn't refute anything.

LOL...I did...and you cannot refute that. Unless and until you do...directly.

 

[Lursa]

Divorce isn't the sin...you can still receive sacrament....remarriage is the sin...adultery is what it is considered per the bible. There are exceptions, thus you have to receive an annulment via the Vatican.

Ah thanks.

It's so ****ed up.

 

[Lursa]

but you can somehow ignore the violate and racist pasts of other churches?

I've addressed that at least twice already, so..."you can somehow ignore" that?

Just more evidence that you werent reading my posts very well.

 

[choiceone]

People are now proud of it, but it wasn't always that way...and to the extreme of it being illegal

Maybe that's true in the South, but up here in the NE, there is a completely different situation. In the 19th century, some of the great ethnologists and comparative linguistics people in the budding days of anthropology and linguistics were Native Americans or half white/NA. Some received great academic honors. There were
"white" anthropologists who became honorary chiefs of Iroquois nations and were Cornell, Harvard, or Yale profs. Some women, too, had bi-ethnic honors. Even in the late 18th century, US official maps marked most of NY as non-state land, the "Iroquois country."

And I have to say, if you go google miscegenation laws, for example, many states that had them didn't have them very long and gave them up. It's because the state populations had internal variety.

Every region, state/territory, and town were always composed of a bunch of prejudiced people and another of non-prejudiced people, of people who claimed God never intended mixing and others who thought that was rot, etc. Back in the day, NY also had a KKK, but we just had a whole lot more people who thought that way of believing was rot.

The different bunches vied to control the government. It was never absolute. In places like Minnesota, they didn't ban mixed marriages. Out in the West, prejudiced people discriminated only against certain combinations and not others, depending on which ethnic groups were a threat to labor unions or land buyers or what have you. This was a real complicated country.

 

[choiceone]

Divorce isn't the sin...you can still receive sacrament....remarriage is the sin...adultery is what it is considered per the bible. There are exceptions, thus you have to receive an annulment via the Vatican.

The Vatican at times sold annulments - so if you didn't have enough money, you couldn't get one, but even horrible people could if they were rich enough. It depended on which Vatican (i.e., pope).

 

[ClaraD]

Maybe that's true in the South, but up here in the NE, there is a completely different situation. In the 19th century, some of the great ethnologists and comparative linguistics people in the budding days of anthropology and linguistics were Native Americans or half white/NA. Some received great academic honors. There were
"white" anthropologists who became honorary chiefs of Iroquois nations and were Cornell, Harvard, or Yale profs. Some women, too, had bi-ethnic honors. Even in the late 18th century, US official maps marked most of NY as non-state land, the "Iroquois country."

And I have to say, if you go google miscegenation laws, for example, many states that had them didn't have them very long and gave them up. It's because the state populations had internal variety.

Every region, state/territory, and town were always composed of a bunch of prejudiced people and another of non-prejudiced people, of people who claimed God never intended mixing and others who thought that was rot, etc. Back in the day, NY also had a KKK, but we just had a whole lot more people who thought that way of believing was rot.

The different bunches vied to control the government. It was never absolute. In places like Minnesota, they didn't ban mixed marriages. Out in the West, prejudiced people discriminated only against certain combinations and not others, depending on which ethnic groups were a threat to labor unions or land buyers or what have you. This was a real complicated country.

Wrong, I believe there were only 2 states that had repealed it before reaching statehood, but they also prohibited interracial marriage before reaching statehood.

 

[ClaraD]

The Vatican at times sold annulments - so if you didn't have enough money, you couldn't get one, but even horrible people could if they were rich enough. It depended on which Vatican (i.e., pope).

They didn't sell annulments...you had to pay to have your case heard, yes...but there was no guarantee that it would be accepted.

 

[ClaraD]

I've addressed that at least twice already, so..."you can somehow ignore" that?

Just more evidence that you werent reading my posts very well.

No, you haven't...you give your opinion on it, but you have ZERO actual knowledge on it.

 

[Lursa]

No, you haven't...you give your opinion on it, but you have ZERO actual knowledge on it.

Yes I did and so did you and so did the heavily biased (and no more truthful than much of the RCC) Catholic.com. It's whitewashed of course.

However, you were unable to refute any of it directly, all you did was say 'na huh' and fall back on Catholic.com.

If I was going to accept any 'sources' about the RCC they wouldnt "be produced by the RCC". The RCC doesnt even follow or interpret the Bible accurately. It invented popes and then when it couldnt control them, they had to invent Ex-Cathedra. And the intercession of priests between God and sinners.

I have done my own reading on the RCC over the years.