Has anyone else read the humanae vitea and found it prescient?
Slippery slope.
>>846388
The encyclical came out in 1968, almost 50 years ago.
Now look at what it said and see if it's warnings exist at all in modern day.
It's far past the timeframe for "slippery slope" to be immediately applicable in discussion.
>>846418
Well it's not like in all time periods up to now, all men cherished their wives, and only now do men feel suddenly abusive. Now at least women have a say in the pregnancy situation.
Ultimately our society is better off with access to medical treatment than having it be banned by religious institutions.
>muh care and affection
gay
>>846462
More unfalsifiable hooplah coming through
The whole reason WASPs pushed contraception is to sabotage papist and nonwhite fertility as it did to theirs.
>>846462
>medical treatment
So pregnancy is a disease now?
>>846464
>pairbonding has nothing to do with civilization
>>846478
No but safe abortion is a medical treatment.
>>846356
What if I know and understand she doesn't want to be a babymomma but does have sexual needs?
What if we fulfill each other's sexual needs monogmously and without any pretense of superiority or objectification?
What if we show temperance in our sexual acts even if we use contraceptives?
Catholic reasoning rarely works outside the framework of Catholic virtue. And even then it hardly works because it's so absolute. It's an utter failure to adapt to a changing society and to consider any outside merit or virtue.
>>846356
>It's another religionfag thread.
Oh yay. Just what this board needs. To answer your question no I haven't read it. Care to tell me some of its more inspired arguments? Because that image is pretty stupid.
>>846356
Good sex enhances a relationship.
Why bother taking sexual advice from someone with no experience in it.
>>846545
>religion doesn't belong on /his/
>>846356
> found it prescient?
Not really, 1968 was pretty dam late to the game though funnily enough you could make exactly the same argument he makes there and apply it to his argument that its completely ok to have sex during known "infertile periods"
>>846581
It's a shame that religion is such a divisive topic, unfortunately it leads to all sorts of tangents. Discussing the historical events surrounding religions should be the focus, and advocating for one's own religion should be banned, as it is always completely disingenuous and unwelcome.
>>846581
You know what anon you're right. I shouldn't be an ass about discussion for discussion's sake. My apologies for being a dick. I haven't read this humanae vitea. What do you like about it assuming you're the OP?
>>846514
>treatment
And what is it treating and can you name other treatments that cover things that aren't correcting an illness, malady, injury, or other correctable ailment and are "treating" an issue that has a relatively important outcome that is the whole reason life on this planet exists?
>>846642
I get your rhetoric but the fact is access to safe abortions is beneficial for society, as opposed to promoting dangerous self-abortions or "backalley" abortions.
That's only referring to the "icky" part, the whole issue of "contraceptives" is even more tenuous since that is about condoms or pills which prevent the pregnancy in the first place. These are even more practical and harder to justify making illegal via religious demands.
>>846674
>safe abortions is beneficial for society, as opposed to promoting dangerous self-abortions or "backalley" abortions.
Didn't the NARAL founder in his autobiography say he made up the 10,000 number for "deaths from illegal abortion?"
>>846732
Consider that the number of abortions in inner city ghettos is sometimes greater than the number of child births (while at the same time being a very Christian place, showing the religion doesn't really prevent it). If you banned abortion than you would just have poor parts of the country overflow with more poor people that the families couldn't take care of.
>>846743
That doesn't answer the question, did he or didn't he?
>>846674
Ever heard of Frederica Mathewes-Green?
>>846743
>kill the poor
Okay then Jello.
>>846588
But, assuming we're discussing NFP, isn't the difference a matter of inducing infertility VS taking advantage of natural infertility?
>>846356
>May forget the reverence due to a woman
Why exactly are they due reverence? Also, why exactly would I want like 12 kids?
>>846596
>Discussing the historical events surrounding religions should be the focus, and advocating for one's own religion should be banned
Seems tricky with that as I've seen arguments that come down to "I and my views have historical credibility that aren't present for yours and your accusation lacks historical credibility."
Plus there's defending your views against accusations laid against them so how do we deal with that?
>>846880
A lot of the times these stem from theological and dogmatic distinctions, so they can be viewed as incidents in the development and evolution of religious institutions. Frame them as descriptions of characteristics of religious tenants.
But if two people start arguing who is going to hell and who is the rightful faithful interpretation of God then let them both be banned for bickering about pointless shit.
>>846872
>But, assuming we're discussing NFP, isn't the difference a matter of inducing infertility VS taking advantage of natural infertility?
Not really, taking advantage of an illness to kill yourself (ie by not seeking treatment) is suicide just as much as killing yourself with a gun.
In both his fertility issues it involves people taking advantage of how the body works to have sex for pleasure and not procreation hence falling into that problem he outlined
>>846876
Large Catholic families aren't a requirement. Some Catholic couples have 2 kids, some 5 and some 9, but it's seen through a "Walter Kronkite" lens ("...and that's the way it is.") as opposed to "MOAR MAKE MOAR BABBEHS." If you're having kids because you want to fill a non-existing quota, you're doing it wrong. You should want to have kids because that's the point of sex, sex in integral to marriage and marriage should always be open to children, regardless of the number. As far as the Church is concerned, 1 child is just as good as 7 and 7 is just as good as 1.
And why shouldn't women be due reverence?
>>846913
>You should want to have kids because that's the point of sex.
I can see why Catholics love Aristotle and get flustered by postmodernists
>>846356
That quote...
>Your wife is not a cum dumpster
>>846923
Evil human nature... causing people to want to have sex and physical pleasure.
>>846923
Seems like he completely missed the threat of that comes from a depressed labour market. Still Chesterson was always a man who was better at expressing bad ideas than coming up with good ones
>>846356
Yeah because treating woman as a second class citizens and an overgrown children is such a fantastic system
>>846893
Well, from what I've seen, it's more:
>Protestant: Early Christianity was identical to how we see it and (Church Father) was one of us!
>Catholic: But records on their lives and views, be it scripture or even their own journals, are contrary to that. They are far closer to us because we actually have a historical precident to this.
>P: (proceeds to spout absurd claims that an atheist with no horse in this race would call bullshit from a purely historic standpoint and makes assertion on what Catholics believe based on what other Prots have said)
>C: But that's not even what we believe or how that particualar Catholic belief works. (Refutes claims and argues for his view using historical and official Church sources)
>P: YEAH YOURE GOING TO HELL! TRENT WHORE OF BBQALON JESUIT ASSASSINS
This usually goes on and on with the Catholic usually saying "you're an idiot and here's why you're wrong on historical and general info fronts without even delving into theological truth that much if at all" and the Protestant making the "you're going to hell" claims.
Its why I prefer Catholic and Orthodox arguments because they both formally came into existance at the same time, believe that before the Schism we both believed the same stuff and all points of contention come from mutual sequestering where we each took our own approaches to stuff, and both agreeing fundie Protestants are crazy. With Cathlodoxy, it's "we're both right on most stuff but one of is more right than the other." Protestants just spin this Black V White narritive where there is zero truthful aspects to the Catholic church and even make arguments that contradict themselves, mostly on how salvation works just so Catholics are fucked either way despite it actually working against how they think it works.
>>846983
>Its why I prefer Catholic and Orthodox arguments because they both formally came into existance at the same time, believe that before the Schism we both believed the same stuff and all points of contention come from mutual sequestering where we each took our own approaches to stuff, and both agreeing fundie Protestants are crazy.
Yeah but watch it degenerate into babbling when they actually confront one another
>Our Church is unchanging!
>What about XYZ
>Oh that doesnt count thats not a theological issue/it was always like that we were just declaring that.
And dont even get me started on the bickering regarding the nature of the Pope.
Without a common enemy both your groups fall into the same problem made. At best you try an skirt around the issue by the whole "we agree on more than we disagree" whilst steadfastly refusing to engage in the very serious points raised by the other. It is just as disgustingly hypocritical as those "non denominational" branches
>>847028
Well, not sure about Orthobros, but Catholics can take or leave the existance of the Orthodox Church for the most part. Heck, for context I didn't really learn about the finer points of the Schism until I was 19 (22 BTW) so it's not like their existance mattered much in my faith formation. In effect they still don't. Most Catholics tend to focus on our own shit than others.
I find the Papal/Patriarchal dialogues of late to be nifty though.
In the end, Cathlodox squabbles are being (or at least seem to) adressed in hopes we can get less, squabbly. Let's start with that Gregorian Vs Julian thing before getting into actual heavy stuff like how sin works.
>>846935
Yes goy, do what feels good and don't think too hard about it!
>>846935
The evil here is not in a fact of desire's existence but in inability to keep it under controll. Inner beast is always hungry - the nature made it this way becase in natural conditions it was practical. But due to our intellect, we do not live in natural conditions now. With each passing year of tecnical progress, nature limits our sins less, so if we want to survive we need to limit them ourselves.
>>847072
True, but no need to go overboard and condemn healthy behaviors by making of fictional guilt-trips.
>>847062
>Well, not sure about Orthobros, but Catholics can take or leave the existance of the Orthodox Church for the most part. Heck, for context I didn't really learn about the finer points of the Schism until I was 19 (22 BTW) so it's not like their existance mattered much in my faith formation. In effect they still don't. Most Catholics tend to focus on our own shit than others.
Problem is that this is taken to the point of bigotry, you have no trouble invoking the church fathers to deal with protestants but once they align with the Orthodox Church all of a sudden Catholics no longer care about the Church Fathers.
>In the end, Cathlodox squabbles are being (or at least seem to) adressed in hopes we can get less, squabbly. Let's start with that Gregorian Vs Julian thing before getting into actual heavy stuff like how sin works.
No its mainly about your rejection of the Church Fathers and the foundations of Apostolic Succession.
Heres a quick two minute cartoon on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoU2o1iRN0U
>>847088
I'm not Catholic anymore, but at least the latter part of my education focused on theology, which included the church fathers and the councils, which they use to defend the Churches positions like Papal supremacy.
Of course they interpreted documents and events in a way that supports their side rather than as neutral scholars, but the Orthodox do the same thing
>>847109
>Of course they interpreted documents and events in a way that supports their side rather than as neutral scholars, but the Orthodox do the same thing
Catholics use it like Protestants do. Papal supremacy is a huge and unjustified leap from Papal primacy.
Why are you no longer a Catholic?
>>847116
Lost faith and became an atheist/agnostic. Orthodox are probably a little closer to early Christianity, but Latin and Greek Christianity were already different beasts by the end of the ecumenical councils.
>>846356
>Some pedophile homo in a skirt giving instructions on hetrosexual sex
>>847125
>>Papal supremacy is a huge and unjustified leap from Papal primacy.
The same way in which Protestants taking the valid position of scripture having a very important role to scripture having the defining and supreme role.
In both cases this involved an innovation based on making a huge deviation from the apostolic tradition.
>>847136
What caused you to loose your faith?
What would lead you back into christianity or another religion?
>>847155
I started getting skeptical of miracles and the supernatural I also started reading a little on the historical Jesus
> What would lead you back into christianity or another religion?
Direct and non induced experience with the supernatural. That said I do still have an interest in meditation and esoteric practices of various religions
>>847176
>Direct and non induced experience with the supernatural.
I'm not the other anon, but why this? Why can't it just be any type of proof?
>>847176
Which books on the historicity of Jesus did you read and have you read any athiest works?
>>847137
>Chick Tracts
>>847180
Well I suppose there are a few other things that would be sufficient. If its just be I cant eliminate hallucination, but I can at least rule the possibility of fraud
>>847136
Try the Maronites. They date back to the 400s and have been pretty stagnant while also not really being part of the Schism.
>>847209
when people post these its hard to tell if they are serious or ironic
>>847209
>>847149
You sound like youre putting more importance on the role of Pope in Catholicism than Catholics put on the guy.
>>847214
I love how you just ignored the whole substance of that post
>>847226
>You sound like youre putting more importance on the role of Pope in Catholicism than Catholics put on the guy.
Its the issue that created and is maintaining the schism.
>>847215
Well you shouldn't take them seriously either way. What does it matter?
>>847209
This is like the 10th time this has been posted here.
>>846533
your whole argument could be summed up as:
>it's current year guise!!
Catholic virtue is virtue itself. If you don't like virtue itself you can do whatever you want, just don't appropriate the word and use it to justify your immorality
>>847215
I always post that to put Chicks views in context.
He says the Catholic Church is Babylonian paganism, but also that dinosaurs died of suffocation due to large size and less plants post Deluge despite not all dinosaurs being megafauna (Compsognathus were tiny) and non dinosaur megafauna of comparable size to certain dinos somehow being immune to post deluge suffocation.
Plus this is what he thinks kids finding out Santa isn't real will do.
>>847229
Actually I was giving you advice on stuff close to Early Christianity. How'd I ignore your post? Maronites are neither Latin not Greek.
>>847247
But why do you do it? Nobody here takes Chick seriously.
![article-1290576-0162F9490000044D-779_468x620[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/INOqLaE.jpg "article-1290576-0162F9490000044D-779_468x620[1].jpg")
>>847242
>Catholic virtue is virtue itself.
>just don't appropriate the word
Like you just did?
God damn embarrassing wow.
>Like you just did?
I didn't, I am sorry you are too dumb to understand
>>847254
Hmm, that's a good question.
I don't know, maybe it has to to with that "SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET" mentality where we just can't leave bait alone and Chick Tracts are like the deep fried Snickers of bait in religious discussions. You know it's BS and not something you should argue over, but the bait is just to absurd to pass up sometimes.
What do you do to fight the desire to take bait that absolutley rediculous?
It's a solid console, for sure, but I've always preferred using a controller and a big television. There are also only around 5 games you can't just get on the PSTV.
>>847268
Are you making a Vita joke or did you get lost on your way to /v/?
>>847264
I know what you meant, I just wanted to highlight the close proximity of your words to underscore your rank hypocrisy for anyone who happens to view your post, as an example of how people like you are not to be taken seriously in any discussion.
Even your disingenuous smug rebuttal is par for the course.
Sounds like a cuck to me STOP PUTTING THE PUSSY ON A PEDESTAL.
>>847272
Yay, /pol/'s here.
Fun times and well thought out discourse ahead friends. /s
>>847271
nice projection
>>847266
I don't fight it. I give in to the bait.
Or I just post those silly fish images.
>>847288
Yeah, I need to get more of those silly fish pics.
>>847251
>Actually I was giving you advice on stuff close to Early Christianity
Yeah which was ignoring the post entirely as it was one which was dealing with why he is no longer a Catholic.
>>847300
>>847312
Dubs confirm, let's go save big folders of silly fish refusing bait.
>>847314
Thanks for the head start anon. :)
>>847315
Here's something to start you off.
>yes because before contraception men generally revered women
kek
>>846983
>we catlickz was good boys we dindu nuffin
Please, Catholics shit post as much as the Protestants on this board and don't pretend like it's not true
>muh doos vult
>muh prottie boogeyman
>muh constantinople
Around catlicks, expect slimy tactics
>>847505
Its the same with the orthodox if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The christ poster had not the slightest recollection of the day before, they rattle off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; they can't remember a thing, except that they had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
>>847347
In the 50s men would open doors for women, stand when they entered the room and do all sorts of rituals where they adored women. But I'm sure you're going to tell me that because there was no real law against raping your wife that men in the 50s were chauvinist patriarchal pigs.
>>847578
Well aside from no protection from being raped by their husbands they were generally kept in a state where they had no independence and wholly dependent on men wether their fathers or husbands meaning that they could quite literally get trapped in bad marraiges. Likewise they were literally payed much less regardless of their skill or effort for what jobs were open to them.
>>847591
>they were generally kept in a state where they had no independence and wholly dependent on men wether their fathers or husbands meaning that they could quite literally get trapped in bad marraiges
Please enlighten me as to what state this was and why they were in it. Yes, it's true that most women in the '50's were housewives, but I can guarantee you that the vast majority of the women from that time period preferred it that way and the men did to. It has nothing to do with oppressing women (at least not on a conscious level) and more to do with tens of thousands of years of biological and cultural conditioning. Women are biologically more inclined to want to raise their children, hence "a mother's care". Men are biologically and culturally conditioned to work and provide for his family while the mother cares for them. As far as them getting trapped in bad marriages, it's really not so different today as it was in the 50's. What's interesting to me is that the modern married couple has more access to a wealth of information and support to foster and grow a marriage (couples therapy, psychological reviews, prescription medications, marriage counselors, etc.) and yet the divorce rate is significantly higher than it was in the '50's. This is because marriage over time has been reduced to a social contract which can be broken for any sort of reason. Once marriage was viewed as a social contract first and a spiritual vow second, the wheels began to fall off. This is why the Supreme Court redefining traditional marriage will have far more negative effects than the LGBT facists understand.
>>847505
That doesn't even rhyme.
