Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-16-2002, 05:16 PM

Funky -

Read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385265271/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Eunuchs</a> above. Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a learned historian, and she details the historical development of the doctrine in all of its absurdity.

FunkyRes · 07-16-2002, 07:19 PM

Could be that is why it was originally objected to- could you do me a favor and quote the part that demonstrates this?

btw- I am not a defender of the Catholic Church by any means. I'm a protestant, and I do not object to pre conception birth control.

Vorkosigan · 07-16-2002, 11:18 PM

There's also a very good account in Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians, although he is more interested in tracing its development in the context of the relationship between those two groups.

Skeptical · 07-17-2002, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FunkyRes:


I've had Catholics tell me that the objection is to make extra-marital sex less tempting.

Is there documentation that demonstrates your take on it?

I don't have the reference in front of me, but I took a societal ethics class in college oh so many years ago and one of the chapters was on sexual ethics. I wrote a paper on the RCC's view and I distinctly recall that one of the Pope's had written that any sex that did not "respect the purpose of the sperm" was a sin.

In other words, because the purpose of sperm is to inseminate, any sex that "spills seed" but is not conducive to impregnation is a sin. (I'm paraphrasing somewhat, but I'm certain on the "respecting the purpose" bit)

In other words, not only is contraception a sin, but also:

-oral sex
-manual stimulation
-non-vaginal intercourse
-sex during pregnancy

Of course, any sex between women would not be applicable, so I don't know how the doctrine would apply to lesbians.

I also pointed out that using this logic, it's more of a sin to abstain from sex than it is to use contraception, since sex with contraception involves at least the _possibility_ of preganancy, while complete abstinence does not.

If your really interested, I can look up the reference when I get home this weekend.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

FunkyRes · 07-17-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

I wrote a paper on the RCC's view and I distinctly recall that one of the Pope's had written that any sex that did not "respect the purpose of the sperm" was a sin.

Every sperm is sacred

little monty python humor

That's very possible.

tripleX · 07-20-2002, 01:35 AM

Why the hell anyone would allow their lives to be dictated by some schmuck who's just as flawed and "sinful" as the rest of us is beyond me. I just don't see how one person could be considered holier than anyone else, but then again, I don't believe in anything "holy" except maybe a holy shite.

You only live life once, why not have the most fun you can?

07-20-2002, 08:46 PM

To all:

Two items. First, that other Paul never reported that those who abstain from sex are more holy than those who partake. What he said was that those without a wife and kids would not have to worry about the wife and kids while tending to the needs of those in the church. So for those assuming the leadership role in the church, it would be best if they did not marry, i.e., they could devote their efforts entirely to the church and not have to either worry about the wife and kids or simply neglect their needs in favor of the church.

Next item. Priests in the early church were allowed to marry. The celibacy restriction was adopted later because of concern over church property being passed to the wife/kids upon death.

And as to why premarital sex is frowned upon, first, as biology makes plain, the only reason for male and female is for purposes of sexual reproduction. And unless we want, as is the case today, great numbers of kids growing up with only one parent present in the household, better we save the sex for husband and wife. And for those truly in the know, it is precisely because of the need of children to have both parents in their lives, that divorce is condemned by Jesus. As He stated the matter: But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created them created them male and female? And He said, For this reason [she was taken out of man so that a man could be taken out of her], a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [in sexual intercourse], and the two [sperm and egg] shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Thus, what God has joined together, let not man separate.

For those familiar with the workings of the divorce court in your area, then maybe you have heard judge after judge after judge after judge after judge after judge say to parents that while it might be nice if they hate each other, they will never be able to change the fact that they have a child together. Indeed. Some decided to become what Genesis reports as "for flesh one." That child over there.

Toto · 07-20-2002, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul5204:
...
And as to why premarital sex is frowned upon, first, as biology makes plain, the only reason for male and female is for purposes of sexual reproduction. And unless we want, as is the case today, great numbers of kids growing up with only one parent present in the household, better we save the sex for husband and wife. And for those truly in the know, it is precisely because of the need of children to have both parents in their lives, that divorce is condemned by Jesus. As He stated the matter: But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created them created them male and female? And He said, For this reason [she was taken out of man so that a man could be taken out of her], a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [in sexual intercourse], and the two [sperm and egg] shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Thus, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
...

Um, we know a lot more about birth control these days than they did back then, so your reason for saving sex for marriage doesn't hold any more.

And as for Jesus' concerns for the children, I see no mention of children in any of the Bible verses you refer to.

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The reason referred to is that Eve was created from Adam's rib.

This verse is quoted in Mark 10:

6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

A similar passage is in Matthew 19.

The writers of the Bible had no concept of sperm and egg, and it appears that their concerns were with ritual purity, not child welfare. When Jesus talks about what God has joined, he is talking about divorce, not about sperm and egg. It was only much later that Thomas Aquinas supplied the motive of protecting the children.

Vorkosigan · 07-20-2002, 11:31 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul5204:
And as to why premarital sex is frowned upon, first, as biology makes plain, the only reason for male and female is for purposes of sexual reproduction.

Paul, biology doesn't care whether you are married or not. So there's no logical link between your first thought and your second. Additionally, two sexes are indeed for reproduction, but sex may serve other social functions. You are apparently very confused on the sociality of sex.

And unless we want, as is the case today, great numbers of kids growing up with only one parent present in the household, better we save the sex for husband and wife.

Or alternatively, educate our children in responsibility for their bodies. Again, your logic has severe flaws.

And for those truly in the know, it is precisely because of the need of children to have both parents in their lives, that divorce is condemned by Jesus.

For those truly, truly in the know, Jesus said it was OK in cases of adultery.

Vorkosigan

FunkyRes · 07-20-2002, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Um, we know a lot more about birth control these days than they did back then, so your reason for saving sex for marriage doesn't hold any more.

As is clearly demonstrated by the abortion clinics going bankrupt and the rapid decline of STD's.

Right?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-16-2002, 05:16 PM	#11
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Funky - Read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385265271/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Eunuchs</a> above. Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a learned historian, and she details the historical development of the doctrine in all of its absurdity.

07-16-2002, 07:19 PM	#12
FunkyRes Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Antioch, CA Posts: 173	Could be that is why it was originally objected to- could you do me a favor and quote the part that demonstrates this? btw- I am not a defender of the Catholic Church by any means. I'm a protestant, and I do not object to pre conception birth control.

07-16-2002, 11:18 PM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	There's also a very good account in Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians, although he is more interested in tracing its development in the context of the relationship between those two groups.

07-20-2002, 01:35 AM	#16
tripleX New Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Arizona Posts: 3	Why the hell anyone would allow their lives to be dictated by some schmuck who's just as flawed and "sinful" as the rest of us is beyond me. I just don't see how one person could be considered holier than anyone else, but then again, I don't believe in anything "holy" except maybe a holy shite. You only live life once, why not have the most fun you can?

07-20-2002, 08:46 PM	#17
Paul5204 Guest Posts: n/a	To all: Two items. First, that other Paul never reported that those who abstain from sex are more holy than those who partake. What he said was that those without a wife and kids would not have to worry about the wife and kids while tending to the needs of those in the church. So for those assuming the leadership role in the church, it would be best if they did not marry, i.e., they could devote their efforts entirely to the church and not have to either worry about the wife and kids or simply neglect their needs in favor of the church. Next item. Priests in the early church were allowed to marry. The celibacy restriction was adopted later because of concern over church property being passed to the wife/kids upon death. And as to why premarital sex is frowned upon, first, as biology makes plain, the only reason for male and female is for purposes of sexual reproduction. And unless we want, as is the case today, great numbers of kids growing up with only one parent present in the household, better we save the sex for husband and wife. And for those truly in the know, it is precisely because of the need of children to have both parents in their lives, that divorce is condemned by Jesus. As He stated the matter: But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created them created them male and female? And He said, For this reason [she was taken out of man so that a man could be taken out of her], a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife [in sexual intercourse], and the two [sperm and egg] shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Thus, what God has joined together, let not man separate. For those familiar with the workings of the divorce court in your area, then maybe you have heard judge after judge after judge after judge after judge after judge say to parents that while it might be nice if they hate each other, they will never be able to change the fact that they have a child together. Indeed. Some decided to become what Genesis reports as "for flesh one." That child over there.

07-20-2002, 11:31 PM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul5204: And as to why premarital sex is frowned upon, first, as biology makes plain, the only reason for male and female is for purposes of sexual reproduction. Paul, biology doesn't care whether you are married or not. So there's no logical link between your first thought and your second. Additionally, two sexes are indeed for reproduction, but sex may serve other social functions. You are apparently very confused on the sociality of sex. And unless we want, as is the case today, great numbers of kids growing up with only one parent present in the household, better we save the sex for husband and wife. Or alternatively, educate our children in responsibility for their bodies. Again, your logic has severe flaws. And for those truly in the know, it is precisely because of the need of children to have both parents in their lives, that divorce is condemned by Jesus. For those truly, truly in the know, Jesus said it was OK in cases of adultery. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.