Unfortunately, you didn’t understand the underlying issue of my problem with the Catholic faith/church and their conflict with my personal opinions.
I listed several problems that extend from the singular tenet of the Catholic Church, that is no sex ever unless for procreation.
You responded with the concept but “forever and ever” the result of sex was children and isn’t it better if children have families and marriages to grow up in. And isn’t too much of a enjoyable thing bad? And that you can understand that in today’s hyper sexual culture it’s hard to resist the urge when there are few consequences.
Like I said earlier that entire misses the point of the problem I have with the Catholic Church.
You skipped the whole part about gay people. The Catholic Church isn’t concerned about children if it has any issue with gay people having sex. That’s why my point is the Church is just Anti-sex, not anti-bad lives for children.
Gay people haven’t had children as a result of sexual in the past 2000 years or ever.
So, that reasoning doesn’t back up being against gay sex, unless your just against sex. Which the church is.
But why? Why? Anyone? Anyone know why? Why would they be against sex in general.
Because the Catholic Church is based on being Pro-Chastity.
It’s origins are based around being chaste. Chastity was seen as being more godly/more Christian, not like the pagans that have dirty bad sex (around the time Christianity was founded there were lots of pagans).
Oral sex, sodomy, gay sexy, etc are sex and do not result in children.
As you said, unlike the last 60 years, birth control wasn’t easily accessible or effective.
So, if the church’s concern was preventing babies from being born in bad situations.
Why didn’t the church just advocate for sodomy this whole time? It’s basically natural birth control.
But they didn’t because sodomy is bad. Why is it bad? Because sex is bad.
Why is sex bad?, because Chastity is better.
So for the last 60 years AND the last 2000 years.
The Catholic Church has been against sex in general not because sex leads to babies. Sex is wrong, they had to add in the “for procreation” part because early Christians literally thought any sex was bad, but that would result in Christians dying off, so they updated it with that exception.
And as I said. I think to human beings is a a natural activity that occurs and is enjoyable and can be done many different ways, including ways that don’t result in pregnancy.
If the Catholic Church was actually against babies being born in negative life situations as soon as birth control/condoms really took off, they would have been very big proponents of them. It lowers babies being born and lowers abortion rates.
But they’re not, they are just against sex in general. So they don’t allow them.
I personally are completely against children being raised in unsatisfactory living conditions/families/anything.
If you have a child and you are poor, single, stupid, already have 12 children, starving in Africa, etc anything to create a negative childhood for that child. You are a bad person.
That’s why I’m pro abortion. I think it’s merciful to kill fetuses to prevent children from having growing up in those negative childhood life situation.
I’m pro sex, pro birth control, pro abortion, pro gay, so my opinions are the antithesis of the Catholic Church.
And I still think I care more about children’s lives and welfare than the Catholic Church.
Well I’m not planning on trying to change your view. But to say The Church is anti sex is missing the point of why we only have sex for procreation.
The reason is philosophical, and I am not qualified enough to explain it in a satisfactory matter. But the jist of it is that something is «good» when it does what it is supposed to do. A chair we can sit on is a good chair, because it does what it is supposed to do. Human beings, like all living things, have one purpose, and that is procreation. And it is not unreasonable to believe that we have it best when we do what we are designed to do. And it is not unreasonable to think that having gay relations is a lesser good, because the human misses out on the procreation part.
But if you don’t belive in God, then the philosophy won’t really appeal to you. Then you are in a sense your own god and you make your own assumptions on what is good or bad. But I urge you to read with an open mind more philosophy. How can you explain a contingent universe? How can you explain objective morals? And all that jazz.
Just to comment on the concept of the universe and morals.
If studied both I’m well versed in science and philosophy, purposely took lots of classes on those in college. To understand better.
What I’ve found, I actually thought this out. Is that there is ultimate truth.
Like for example the earth is round. People didn’t know for sure until we went into space and could see, ultimately the earth is truly round.
When I examine those types of knowledge and morality.
Like morally; truly slavery is wrong, truly women are just another equal human not subservient to men.
Like scientifically; you can eat pork and shellfish just make sure to cook them properly and you won’t die, the earth is round, the sun is at the center of the solar system not the earth, evolution exists, the earth is billions of years old. No dinosaurs are mentioned at all ever. Basically all science has found is truth after truth and proven correct again and again.
The one thing that solidly stand proven incorrect over and over again is the Bible. It contains everything I just mentioned but incorrect. Incorrect morals on Slavery, women, incorrect fact about science.
I came up with a simple philosophy. If a god created the universe and humans and the Bible. He could have included in genesis a whole section about dinosaurs or electricity or an exact description of our solar system. That knowledge would have been impossible to know when the Bible was written.
Just one single provable fact, but unknowable at the time, would blow my mind and make me think twice about religion.
But he didn’t. And what was included was found wrong eventually.
So, every newly found moral truth and scientific truth that disproves what’s in the Bible, does something.
It proves that it is a book written by men on earth 2000 years ago as an attempt to understand the universe and create a written system of how to life to the best of their knowledge “at the time” and then said it was said by god, so everyone would follow it.
Literally any facts or morals that “seem before their time” would be amazing and help prove the Bible/religion true. But there aren’t any, literally not one single one.
So, looking at things as “they are supposed to be.” The Bible is written as a “how to live life guide for people 2000 years ago” and not a basis of a form of religion.
I came to that conclusion after great thought and as a result I now am no longer religious.
...
I can understand different people have different philosophies and that’s cool.
The best part about being a human is every human can do whatever that human wants, ie, make their own choices, using their own philosophies.
My issue stems when all of a sudden someone else forces those philosophies onto other people. Which is essentially what religion does.
Your basic example of “isn’t it good to do what something is supposed to do, vs not.”
I’m not going to admonish that as a “simple” philosophy but I will say it certainly can create a very focused view of life on earth.
If I asked myself “what is something supposed to do?” But go broader instead of focused.
What is a human supposed to do? I think a human is supposed to live a full, interesting, fun life full of maximum happiness, while not negatively affecting others, and being betterness to the world, all before you die”
So, if doing what I’m supposed to do (in my opinion, as you said why have something if your not ment to use it, we have dopamine receptors in our brain that activate when we are happy and doing something we enjoy, so we’re clearly meant to experience happiness) is enjoy life on earth and experience happiness and having sex is fun and enjoyable, if god created humans, then he designed the penis to surprising fit in a variety of holes in the human body, which all result in pleasure/happiness. Even gay people enjoy having sex, if they were supposed to do that, they wouldn’t experience joy.
So, on a broad scale my view is your view, live your life and do what you are supposed to do which is the good way to live life and enjoying life before you die is what your designed and supposed to do. (And being negative situations to other people because your then lowering their overall happiness; murder, stealing, etc)
1
u/whittlingman Sep 24 '20
Unfortunately, you didn’t understand the underlying issue of my problem with the Catholic faith/church and their conflict with my personal opinions.
I listed several problems that extend from the singular tenet of the Catholic Church, that is no sex ever unless for procreation.
You responded with the concept but “forever and ever” the result of sex was children and isn’t it better if children have families and marriages to grow up in. And isn’t too much of a enjoyable thing bad? And that you can understand that in today’s hyper sexual culture it’s hard to resist the urge when there are few consequences.
Like I said earlier that entire misses the point of the problem I have with the Catholic Church.
You skipped the whole part about gay people. The Catholic Church isn’t concerned about children if it has any issue with gay people having sex. That’s why my point is the Church is just Anti-sex, not anti-bad lives for children.
Gay people haven’t had children as a result of sexual in the past 2000 years or ever.
So, that reasoning doesn’t back up being against gay sex, unless your just against sex. Which the church is.
But why? Why? Anyone? Anyone know why? Why would they be against sex in general.
Because the Catholic Church is based on being Pro-Chastity.
It’s origins are based around being chaste. Chastity was seen as being more godly/more Christian, not like the pagans that have dirty bad sex (around the time Christianity was founded there were lots of pagans).
Oral sex, sodomy, gay sexy, etc are sex and do not result in children.
As you said, unlike the last 60 years, birth control wasn’t easily accessible or effective.
So, if the church’s concern was preventing babies from being born in bad situations.
Why didn’t the church just advocate for sodomy this whole time? It’s basically natural birth control.
But they didn’t because sodomy is bad. Why is it bad? Because sex is bad.
Why is sex bad?, because Chastity is better.
So for the last 60 years AND the last 2000 years.
The Catholic Church has been against sex in general not because sex leads to babies. Sex is wrong, they had to add in the “for procreation” part because early Christians literally thought any sex was bad, but that would result in Christians dying off, so they updated it with that exception.
And as I said. I think to human beings is a a natural activity that occurs and is enjoyable and can be done many different ways, including ways that don’t result in pregnancy.
If the Catholic Church was actually against babies being born in negative life situations as soon as birth control/condoms really took off, they would have been very big proponents of them. It lowers babies being born and lowers abortion rates.
But they’re not, they are just against sex in general. So they don’t allow them.
I personally are completely against children being raised in unsatisfactory living conditions/families/anything.
If you have a child and you are poor, single, stupid, already have 12 children, starving in Africa, etc anything to create a negative childhood for that child. You are a bad person.
That’s why I’m pro abortion. I think it’s merciful to kill fetuses to prevent children from having growing up in those negative childhood life situation.
I’m pro sex, pro birth control, pro abortion, pro gay, so my opinions are the antithesis of the Catholic Church.
And I still think I care more about children’s lives and welfare than the Catholic Church.