Catholic Church and IVF

• Con_Alma

  Manhattan Buckeye;764903 wrote:What else should be natural? Cancer treatments? Should patients not undertake chemo because it is unnatural?
  
  Here is a gift from God, stop listening to myths.

  I don't know what else should be natural. That wasn't my point. I stated that I respect the fact that they stand firm on their conviction. I didn't even state if I subscribed to their position but you chose to dwell on that as if I was affirming their views.
  
  I am not listening or subscribing to any myths and I certainly don't receive your suggestion as a gift from God.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  " I stated that I respect the fact that they stand firm on their conviction."
  
  And you brought up the point of "life", which is completely against their conviction, which was my point. What's their conviction exactly? Buggering boys ok, but IVF bad? What a dumbass religion.
• Con_Alma

  I disagree that they are against life based on my limited exposure to their positions. If you don't know their convictions can you truly be certain they are against life?
  
  It's my understanding that they are convicted in natural procreation being the route and gift that God provides us.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;764932 wrote:I disagree that they are against life based on my limited exposure to their positions. If you don't know their convictions can you truly be certain they are against life?
  
  It's my understanding that they are convicted in natural procreation being the route and gift that God provides us.

  
  Well you can read the article and the comments, if you haven't already.
• Con_Alma

  The comments aren't from you. I was asking your position and it's foundation. Here's what I based mine on regarding the Catholic Church not being against life.
  
  "...In his annual speech to Vatican-based diplomats, the
  pope called the right to life ``the most fundamental
  of human rights.''
  
  ``Abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, for example,
  risk reducing the human person to a mere object: life
  and death to order, as it were!'' he said."
  
  "...For the reasons given, the Church considers IVF to be mortally sinful. Indeed, one of these reasons is sufficient of itself to outlaw the practice: the degrading of the two-in-one-flesh unity of parents by deflating the importance of the flesh as a vehicle of love in the formation of new life.
  
  This is true even if the ovum and sperm come from a husband and wife. How much more so, then, if this is not the case? ..."
  
  Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, by the Congregation of the Faith, Feb. 22, 1987.
  
  I'm not suggesting you agree nor even consider their position further but rather are responding to your inquiry regarding my determination.
• password

  

  Who gives a shit what they think, the church doesn't like it because they have not found a way to make money off of it. If you can't have children because of medical reasons, you should be able to use alternative legal methods to fulfill your dream of having a family. The IVF method is not cheap and would require a couple to devote a large amount of time and money to this method of making a family, so I would think that the couple would be financially and mentally stable to give the child a good life and not end up on welfare with a boat load of kids they can't care for. I rant about the Catholic church because they are always trying to tell people how to live their lives but they can't even stop their own from molesting kids.
• Con_Alma

  password;764964 wrote:Who gives a shit what they think,...

  I would guess about 1 in 7 people.
  
  I think the world's Catholic population is a little over 1 billion.
  
  The other side is that 6 out of 7 don't care what they think.
• sleeper

  

  LOL @ the Catholic church. Do you fuckers realize you're brainwashed yet?
  
  Probably not. The only difference between the Catholic church and Scientology is at least the majority of the population knows that they are being exploited.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;765011 wrote:LOL @ the Catholic church. Do you fuckers realize you're brainwashed yet?
  
  ....

  Are there even any on this thread yet???
• sleeper

  

  Who cares? Organized religion is a joke and it needs to be called out for what it is. An entity designed to hoodwink the masses for profit and exploitation. If it's really about "faith" you can believe in god without the church.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;765032 wrote:Who cares? ...

  It was a simple inquiry. Maybe it was curiosity. I guess I cared to know.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;765042 wrote:It was a simple inquiry. Maybe it was curiosity. I guess I cared to know.

  
  Here's a simple inquiry, are you this big of a pompous douchebag offline too?
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;765044 wrote:Here's a simple inquiry, are you this big of a pompous douchebag offline too?

  
  
  I don't think I'm any different in person than on here.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Con_Alma;765055 wrote:I don't think I'm any different in person than on here.

  
  soooooo you are a douchebag?
• Con_Alma

  That's for you to determine if your truly interested. I simply clarified that I am the same person online as offline.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Con_Alma;765079 wrote:That's for you to determine if your truly interested. I simply clarified that I am the same person online as offline.

  
  well I determine that you are in fact a douchebag
• Heretic

  

  This has to be the most civilized labeling of douchebaggery this site has ever seen. My kudos to all involved!
• Con_Alma

  DeyDurkie5
  
  I thought you came to that conclusion some time ago based on your past comments. Obviously I was mistaken. At least we won't dwell on clarifying your views in future threads.
• DeyDurkie5

  

  Con_Alma;765090 wrote:DeyDurkie5
  
  I thought you came to that conclusion some time ago based on your past comments. Obviously I was mistaken. At least we won't dwell on clarifying your views in future threads.

  
  no we will not, dbag
• Con_Alma

  DeyDurkie5;765106 wrote:no we will not...

  That might be the first thing we've agreed on...then again I do remember a browns thread that we had the same view on.
• Skyhook79

  

  sleeper;765044 wrote:Here's a simple inquiry, are you this big of a pompous douchebag offline too?

  
  Oh the irony.
• OSH

  

  sleeper;765032 wrote:Organized religion is a joke and it needs to be called out for what it is. An entity designed to hoodwink the masses for profit and exploitation. If it's really about "faith" you can believe in god without the church.

  
  While I am not a fan of the current "structure" of Christianity (that being the Catholic and Protestant "churches"). I do not believe that in the historical "church" organizing that it was designed for profit and exploitation. I believe that it was structured a lot like Judaism and other realms of academia. You have someone who "teaches" you. You have this "deciphering" and "interpreting" by people who are very intelligent and wise. It was the way to teach, learn, and grow -- or so they thought.
  
  They used this "tithe" as a means of getting people to give to the "church." So be it, there are SO many people today who don't even know that word and exactly what it is. Being generous is not a bad idea. The "tithe" became the means of growing the "church" in numbers (believers) and in size (activities, buildings, etc.). Little did people know that Jesus' "Christians" weren't doing "church" like that. There was no need for the "priesthood" because Jesus fulfilled that. But that is one of those things that people fail to recognize or agree with.
  
  The "church" IS necessary. We are supposed to be in community with each other. We are supposed to lift each other up, to encourage, to strengthen, to grow, to educate, and to love. But the "church" as we know it ISN'T necessary -- that being the pastoral realm of sitting in a pew and listening, watching, and passively engaging in a show (for lack of better terms). While society has evolved and changed, Christianity hasn't. Sure, we've seen some things altered, changed, and done away with. But we've still had pastors, preachers, priests, etc. for years and years. We've still remained seated in a pew on Saturday or Sunday morning or night. Oh, well we've evolved to be "relevant" to society because we have big fancy tvs, light shows, smoke, and productions...but that's not it. We don't need that. Christianity needs community. Christians need accountability. Christians need encouragement.
  
  So, in my mind, Christianity should evolve into a faith that does not require big fancy buildings, a person to "teach," a large parking lot that is only used on 2-3 days a week, electric/water/sewage/trash bills, debates on what color of paint or carpet to install, and staffs of 100+ people. Christianity needs to go back to servanthood. It needs to go back to being rooted in LOVE.
  
  
  Sorry about the rant...
• Con_Alma

  OSH;765182 wrote:... While society has evolved and changed, Christianity hasn't....

  This is a good thing in my opinion. I hope the message doesn't change but I understand your use of "Christianity" and the Church. My wife and I seek out reverence and classical gatherings that place high value on formality and tradition. It's our preference.
  
  Your "rant" was a good explanation of your views and I agree with most everything that you contributed.
• sleeper

  

  The "church" IS necessary.

  No, it's not. A bible is $10. Any investment beyond that is a waste of time and money.
• OSH

  

  Con_Alma;765268 wrote:This is a good thing in my opinion. I hope the message doesn't change but I understand your use of "Christianity" and the Church. My wife and I seek out reverence and classical gatherings that place high value on formality and tradition. It's our preference.
  
  Your "rant" was a good explanation of your views and I agree with most everything that you contributed.

  I appreciate the post Con. Just a topic that really gets me going. I agree with the "society has changed...Christianity hasn't" topic. The message should stay the same, but the way we "operate" and are "organized" needs to change and evolve.
  

  sleeper;765311 wrote:No, it's not. A bible is $10. Any investment beyond that is a waste of time and money.

  If you read the difference in what "church" is, then it is necessary. Even Jesus was in community with other believers -- that is what "church" is. Ekklesia is not meeting at some huge, ornate building on a specific day of the week. Ekklesia is being in a community with other believers. Ekklesia is growing, sharing, learning, helping, and loving those around you. THAT is what is necessary. THAT is what "church" is. The real "church" is necessary, not some building, parking lot, preacher/pastor/minister/priest, band with instruments, and some offering plates.