Gibberish of the day!

[tzor]

PhoneLobster, you seem to be of a more Old Testament mindset that all sins are equal and if you break any one to either a minor degree you’re screwed; end of story.

Where you get that idea I have no idea. I just told you what your position looks like and what the softer populist leaning Catholic position is. And it isn't exactly "old testament" in your words is it?

More importantly though YOU DIDN"T FUCKING ANSWER ANY OF MY DIRECT QUESTIONS YOU JERK. You evaded with some fairy story about old testament values and mentioned "intentions" without explaining the particulars in the slightest.

P.L. I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that are nothing other than strawmen to something that comes out of a Jack Chick comic tract. You have no fucking clue whatsoever about Catholic theology in the slightest and I simply don’t have the time to start with elementary catechism from the ground level up. Everything you claim is flawed in a fundamental way.

You commit whatever sin you feel like. You confess. You are forgiven. Anything short of an excommunication and you are good to go.

I will mention confession since you seem to constantly bring that up incorrectly. Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this. I will highlight a key point that you keep on missing.

1450 "Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."49

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

Wait. So now I can use a condom any time without confessional. I just have to sprinkle fairy dust and think happy thoughts.

Once again, what part of “NO” don’t you understand and what is with the fucking “happy thoughts?” I don’t see “happy thoughts” in the Catechism; I know it’s supposed to be used with the application of fairy dust in order to fly to Never Never Land, but you often seem to confuse that with the Catholic Church. Using a condom “any time” means you probably do not have contrition in the first place and no resolve to avoid sin in the future. On the other hand …

1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible.51

1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.52

Ignorance in the age of Google is no excuse. Arrogant love of straw men is a vice.

[tzor]

Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid?

STUPID? Of course 2+2 can = 5. It can also = 3. I have to go through this shit all the time where I work. The process of converting decimal numbers into binary representations can cause errors that can in turn propagate into various rounding procedures.

Here is an example that I had to Google to respond to a rounding problem in our average ask and bid calculation: (the problem was in the Java code)

0.115d is exactly 0.11500000000000000499600361081320443190634250640869140625
1.115d is exactly 1.1149999999999999911182158029987476766109466552734375
2.115d is exactly 2.1150000000000002131628207280300557613372802734375

In that example “1.12 + 2.12 = 3.13”

[tzor]

I lolled.

Reminds me of a sign at an “Adult Store” located in a small strip mall that served as a food court for the industrial park that was ironically next to a food joint known as the “Sexy Salad.”

Alternate Entrance In Rear
(No Pun Intended)

Unfortunately the place closed up recently, a recent victim of the hard economic times.

[Quantumboost]

Why are people who believe 2+2=5 stupid? Because they believe stupid things. Why are things they believe stupid? Because they are wrong and illogical.

The difference here is that you can logically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Logically disproving the existance of God is a bit more tough; the whole concept is set up to be quite non-falsifiable. It doesn't make it right, it just means you can't prove it wrong. Of course, religious people are also stuck in the same boat as not being able to prove their own beliefs right, either.

Actually, you notoriously can't logically demonstrate the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 even in the case of integers and pure ideal mathematics. The definition of the addition operation is just that - a definition. In logicspeak, it's a premise - something that you assume to be true because otherwise you couldn't get anywhere. Mathematicians (who admittedly could all be insane ) in certain more "advanced" disciplines actually deal with spaces where 2+2 != 4.

2 + 2 = 4 is just as non-falsifiable as "the existence of God". It's just that claiming the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is completely benign in terms of interacting with the rest of the universe (being at most a bookkeeping convention) while the existence or nonexistence of supernatural superbeings has a much larger impact on the way people perceive the world (and thus act) and carries a lot of other baggage with it.

[violence in the media]

[1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50

You're treating that resolution as an infallible construct. There is nothing about that resolution that makes a subsequent lapse, and cycle of penitence, impossible.

[tzor]

You're treating that resolution as an infallible construct. There is nothing about that resolution that makes a subsequent lapse, and cycle of penitence, impossible.

And there is nothing that prevents the Chicago Cubs from failing to win the World Series, repent of thier poor season, try to do better, and then subsequently fail to win the next World Series either.

[violence in the media]

Ok tzor, so what's more important then, actually winning the world series or really, really meaning to win the world series? If the intent is the important thing, then the actual act of winning or not is irrelevant. If what you do is irrelevant, you might as well just do whatever you want and really, really mean it when you want forgiveness to cover your ass.

Seeing as how catholics depict hell as a place that nobody wants to be and that the only thing that really sends you there (if we accept that Hitler could be forgiven at the last moment) is not being sorry for your actions and asking for forgiveness, it's pretty easy to assume that everyone is really, really sorry for being naughty and they totally mean it. If that's the case, the entirety of the laws and commandments can be reduced to "thou shalt be a self-depricating asskisser." Basically, apologize for being the shitty human that god made you and tell him how awesome he is and you get the backstage pass. WTF is that? That's not a benevolent god, that's an abusive parent.

[Kaelik]

Wait. So now I can use a condom any time without confessional. I just have to sprinkle fairy dust and think happy thoughts.

Once again, what part of “NO” don’t you understand and what is with the fucking “happy thoughts?” I don’t see “happy thoughts” in the Catechism; I know it’s supposed to be used with the application of fairy dust in order to fly to Never Never Land, but you often seem to confuse that with the Catholic Church. Using a condom “any time” means you probably do not have contrition in the first place and no resolve to avoid sin in the future. On the other hand …

Wow Tzor, that was really funny when you took his statement out of context and implied this was his response to confession, and not your explict retarded statement:

"This is why there are exceptions to the rule because you can have the wrong attitude towards NPF and the right attitude toward a condom."

IE, using a damn Condom is fine as long as you have the right attitude.

[PhoneLobster]

P.L. I refuse to answer rhetorical questions that are nothing other than strawmen to something that comes out of a Jack Chick comic tract.

Strawman?

There is a very real group of people standing here saying "We don't believe that Tzor supports the position on contraception that he is describing".

The big question remains. Do YOU support the position YOU are describing?

Or do you disagree with the pope and admit on this issue he is wrong and indeed actively evil?

I find it hard to believe you will call "STRAAAAAAAAWMMAAAAAAAN" on "Do you really believe what you just said?"

That's some spectacular fail right there.

You have no fucking clue whatsoever about Catholic theology in the slightest

Screw the theology (which I happen to be pretty up on for a layman, but still). I have a passing familiarity with the practical application of Catholic ideals. Something you apparently lack.

You for instance provide a quote about some really bullshit obscure "this is how confession is meant to work" I'm telling you how Catholics actually use it. You sin, you confess, you are forgiven, everything is good.

Your brandishing of google suggests to me you really do lack an actual practical familiarity with this shit. I've been dodging out on god damn family baptisms and holy communions all my damn life.

The only way I could believe you actually are a Catholic at this point is if you turn out to be one of those weirdo Opus Dei sectarians. .

Heres a "rehtorical question" Tzor. Are you a member of Opus Dei?

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50

Note the bit where is says you cannot commit a sin again.

Oh wait. It doesn't say that.

You just say "I'll try harder, honest!". Then when you fail you just go and confess again.

It's part of the reason confession is a regular practice.

You know its a regular practice right?

Using a condom “any time” means you probably do not have contrition in the first place and no resolve to avoid sin in the future. On the other hand …

So now your position is that you cannot use a condom "any time". Even though you just told me I should "always" use one during pre marital sex and I'm unmarried.

Well I guess you mean I'm not allowed to have sex then. Gee. How generous of you, you effectively admitted your earlier premarital sex line was totally dishonest on your part.

And you also said that you could allow it if a girl was really really horny for you right then. I mean, where is the resolve to avoid sin in the future with that? After all, you constructed a hypothetical future scenario explicitly for the purpose of determining that, yes, you would use a naughty sinner condom. Saying "I intend not to unless I really feel like it" isn't a resolution to obey, its a resolution to disobey when you feel like it.

Or is it that YOU are allowed to cave to some horny chick but you don't trust the rest of us to have "pure intentions" of reluctance? Or do you imagine the responsibility for the sin is HERS and that you remain pure somehow as long as you make her beg for the condom?

But I guess after all you still do support using a condom every time you are practicing NPF? Yeah?

Really need to clarify that clearly Tzor. I mean, condoms never? With NPF, what about with some Spermicidal Gel? Which combos make condoms good again? It ain't clear at all.

[Ganbare Gincun]

If you're down with Jesus then you won't be a crazy murderer, because Jesus is pretty explicitly not cool with that. If you used to be a crazy murderer but did the whole born-again thing so now you're down with Jesus, then you won't be a crazy murderer anymore, and probably start doing your best to make up for being a crazy murderer.

It's not "you can do whatever you want as long as it's in Jesus' name!", it's "if you really worship Jesus you'll act in the way that he said he wanted you to act".

Tell it to the Lord's Resistance Army. Or the Roman Catholic Church.

[Koumei]

1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."50

Note the bit where is says you cannot commit a sin again.

Oh wait. It doesn't say that.

You just say "I'll try harder, honest!". Then when you fail you just go and confess again.

I think the idea is you have to mean it when you say it, and feel really bad about fucking up. Or just feel really bad in general, all the time.

And you also said that you could allow it if a girl was really really horny for you right then. I mean, where is the resolve to avoid sin in the future with that?

Presumably you are meant to convince her to take a visitor in via the back door. Because that's not a sin *attempts to avoid making a crack about priests buggering young boys, fails*

Come to think of it, what IS their stance on oral/anal/hands-on/dutch-ladders/psychic stimulation?

Or do you imagine the responsibility for the sin is HERS and that you remain pure somehow as long as you make her beg for the condom?

Duh. Christianity teaches us that ALL sin originates with women and we're responsible for everything.

[tzor]

The big question remains. Do YOU support the position YOU are describing?

You know, this is a lot like asking me if I support the ROE for troops in Afghanistan. If I was actually there, my opinion would be worth something. As it is, it’s not really worth anything in a practical sense. I’m not sure how I can best explain that to you. And while I am not in general not one to shout this out; I will state the following:

I am currently single.
I have always been single.
I am currently not in a sexual relationship.

Screw the theology (which I happen to be pretty up on for a layman, but still). I have a passing familiarity with the practical application of Catholic ideals. Something you apparently lack.

It is more than just the theology; in jumping to the “practical application” you are going from the idea to the many ways to abuse the idea. It’s like discussing the U.S. tax code by talking about all the ways to cheat on your taxes.

It is easy to “abuse” the system in the Catholic Church; the best example is in the area of annulments. Due to a combination of the ease to deliberately mislead and a really crappy state of understanding of church teaching by many of its members, the practical application will always fall short.

Going back to the theology, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool God.

Heres a "rehtorical question" Tzor. Are you a member of Opus Dei?

No!

So now your position is that you cannot use a condom "any time". Even though you just told me I should "always" use one during pre marital sex and I'm unmarried.

Pre marital sex is a SIN. It is an offense against chastity. In a non monogamous relationship one also has to consider the limitation of the spread of disease as well as the implications of pregnancy (it’s not like the case of the married couple who didn’t want to have a child just then but could accept the result). Compounding sin, especially when the compounded sin is greater than the original one is never a good thing.

Well I guess you mean I'm not allowed to have sex then. Gee. How generous of you, you effectively admitted your earlier premarital sex line was totally dishonest on your part.

Well you shouldn’t really. It’s a sin. Just like binge eating, and binge drinking.

So if you are having wild daily sex with someone outside of marriage, the only thing I am going to say is “you really should not be doing that.”

If this was a one time situation; well I’m not going to be the one to cast the first stone.

[tzor]

Come to think of it, what IS their stance on oral/anal/hands-on/dutch-ladders/psychic stimulation?

I think the answer is that there is no answer.

Those wacky nuns at EWTN would say "NO NEVER EVER."

On the other hand there appears to be a contrary opinion expressed by a "Christopher West" that seems to be endorced by some bishops.

August 10, 2009: "We are convinced that John Paul II's Theology of the Body is a treasure for the Church, indeed a gift of the Holy Spirit for our time. Yet, its scholarly language needs to be 'translated' into more accessible categories if the average person is to benefit from it. To do this is the specific mission of the Theology of the Body Institute, and we believe that Christopher West, the Institute's popular lecturer and spokesman, has been given a particular charism to carry out this mission. With great skill as a presenter, with keen insight as a thinker, and with profound reverence for the mystery of human sexuality, he has been able to reach thousands in our sexually wounded culture with the Gospel of salvation in Christ."

-Justin Cardinal Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Kevin Rhoades, Bishop of Harrisburg

Unfortunately, his reference material is only available in published form.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Do I want to know what a dutch ladder is?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Those wacky nuns at EWTN would say "NO NEVER EVER."

I like how oral sex is apparently wrong because it's unhealthy, and someone might have lied to you about how unhealthy it is. One can only assume that smoking, drinking, working as a biochemist, and riding the bus are also all 'implicitly wrong'.

All those who are stating that as long as there is marital intercourse that oral sex is O.K. should tell couples of the physical risks, and the spiritual risks to their marriage. The Church teaches respect for health and condoning this behaviour does not do that, because the other person's health is in jeopardy. The Church may not state explicitly that this behaviour is wrong, but the Church does so implicitly. The Church teaches that we have right to the truth, and this matter is no exception.

[tzor]

I like how oral sex is apparently wrong because it's unhealthy, and someone might have lied to you about how unhealthy it is. One can only assume that smoking, drinking, working as a biochemist, and riding the bus are also all 'implicitly wrong'.

And that’s why I called them “wacky.” It’s also interesting to note that there is no real “theology” to anchor itself on (unlike most Catholic documents which tend to practically link every line to either scripture or a previous authentic document of the church). I also noticed that they really seemed to stretch the notion of the sin of Sodom to include married couples. The Christopher West stuff is apparently based on the documents of John Paul II.

[tzor]

Do I want to know what a dutch ladder is?

Somehow I have the feeling that I really don’t want to know. Mind you, I could be wrong, it might be perfectly innocent like “69” but you can never tell with the Dutch. (At least those bars on big bicycles have been outlawed … ironically I’m sort of sad about that.)

[violence in the media]

Why is citing scripture acceptible sourcing, but Mormon writings are bullshit? If Joseph Smith was a con man and a swindler who WAS NOT given legitimate divine edicts, how is it un-possible for biblical authors to be cut from the same cloth of shyster-hood?

How do you honestly separate the "acceptible" historical texts from the ones just making shit up?

[Kaelik]

Why is citing scripture acceptible sourcing, but Mormon writings are bullshit? If Joseph Smith was a con man and a swindler who WAS NOT given legitimate divine edicts, how is it un-possible for biblical authors to be cut from the same cloth of shyster-hood?

How do you honestly separate the "acceptible" historical texts from the ones just making shit up?

Well, you just have to make that separation before you start thinking.

Then you can think as much as you want after accepting those premises.

But you can never go back and think about why you accepted those premises. Because then you would be all confused.

[PhoneLobster]

So to paraphrase Tzor.

"I refuse to admit that I support these crazy things I write, but even more refuse to deny it.

By the way. No sex for you. Stop having sex. Stop performing other sexual acts. No you can't be forgiven for it like 80%+ of Catholics do, they don't count and god hates them.

Ahem, (looks a bit guilty) but if it's a one time one night stand that doesn't count because I'm suggesting I might maybe be guilty of doing or wanting to do that... It's repeat long term non marital sexual relationships that are immoral (PS marriage isn't a license for sex, its just what you have to do to be allowed to have sex!), one night stands where you abandon your partner and never speak of it again. Those are forgivable... right... please say right! God understands me (You can't trick god) wait I mean um..."

[Koumei]

Do I want to know what a dutch ladder is?

It was from "Zack and Miri make a porno". Not a great movie, terrible moral to the story, but I digress. It is performed by two straight guys, usually. Both guys beat off, but while they hold their own wangs, the free hand is used to hold each other's wrist, so A makes B jerk B off and vice versa.

"It's not gay, because you're not touching dick. Well you are, but it's your own."

[Absentminded_Wizard]

I like how oral sex is apparently wrong because it's unhealthy, and someone might have lied to you about how unhealthy it is. One can only assume that smoking, drinking, working as a biochemist, and riding the bus are also all 'implicitly wrong'.

And that’s why I called them “wacky.” It’s also interesting to note that there is no real “theology” to anchor itself on (unlike most Catholic documents which tend to practically link every line to either scripture or a previous authentic document of the church). I also noticed that they really seemed to stretch the notion of the sin of Sodom to include married couples. The Christopher West stuff is apparently based on the documents of John Paul II.

Reading the first few paragraphs, I noticed that she goes on and on about how God "designed" the human body, so she apparently is unaware of John Paul II's pronouncement that human physical bodies actually evolved.

Then there's the bit about how sex outside of marriage is "separated from the procreative function." Tell that to those of us whose parents were never married.

After that, I just stopped reading.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Do I want to know what a dutch ladder is?

It was from "Zack and Miri make a porno". Not a great movie, terrible moral to the story, but I digress. It is performed by two straight guys, usually. Both guys beat off, but while they hold their own wangs, the free hand is used to hold each other's wrist, so A makes B jerk B off and vice versa.

"It's not gay, because you're not touching dick. Well you are, but it's your own."

Ah, I assumed it was more vulgar than that. That's fairly harmless.

[tzor]

Why is citing scripture acceptible sourcing, but Mormon writings are bullshit? If Joseph Smith was a con man and a swindler who WAS NOT given legitimate divine edicts, how is it un-possible for biblical authors to be cut from the same cloth of shyster-hood?

How do you honestly separate the "acceptible" historical texts from the ones just making shit up?

OK, I am getting a WTF moment here. I was discussing the general nature of Roman Catholic Apologetics. This generally uses quotations from scripture or from previous authoritative Roman Catholic Apologetic documents. When explaining Roman Catholic Apologetics you use Roman Catholic documents. You don’t use Jewish Rabbinic documents (the Talmud for example) and you don’t use Mormon documents (The Book of Mormon) to explain Roman Catholic teachings; you use them to explain Rabbinic Judaism and Mormonism respectively.

I mean seriously, where the fuck did you come up with this question from.

[tzor]

So to paraphrase Tzor.

Bad paraphraise PL. But the simple answer is, yes, you should not have sex outside of the proper relationship of marriage. A high standard, but that's the way it is.

Likewise it is impossible to discuss the notion of Divine Mercy to one who doesn't believe in the God who gives mercy (but somehow believes in the guilt from not following the God he does not believe in). You cannot change your actions from the past; the only actions you can control are those in the present. When the future becomes the present you can change those actions as well.