We have a new pope! (1 Viewer)

[ur_inner_child]

I think there is far more to a relationship than sex. If a person is unable to make a commitment to someone else for life without sex, they probably should not be making that commitment in the first place. A commitment to another person for life should be about love in my opinion, not sex.

I don't think sex should be treated as something you try with another person. I also don't think the meaning of life is to have as much sex as possible for pleasure while ignoring what sex is really about and its consequences.

The Holy Father's position on this issue is entirely valid. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to make our own moral judgements on these issues. Unfortunantly some people here appear to be living life with no morals and unsuprisingly these people appear to be the largest criticisers of the Holy Father and the catholic church.

Perhaps we all need to consider more so what the meaning of life is and why we are here. I don't believe it is to live life without any moral values while criticising those who do.

i dont think anyone in this thread suggested that a relationship is built on sex.

furthermore, abstaining sex (as i had said earlier) is not a way to figure out if your relationship is strong enough, or committed enough. Really. Refer to the examples I mentioned??? Please??

 

[ur_inner_child]

I agree with Asquithian's statement, but perhaps not in the way he meant it. Sex is supposed to be the final culmination of love, and should only be performed under the vow of Marriage because Marriage is a Commitment, or in your field of study, the Contract between two people not to take up relations with other people.

is suppose to be?

is a contract?

under vow?

what would you say my boyfriends parents are doing? They've been together for decades, unmarried. They don't cheat on each other. They don't need a ceremony or a piece of paper to agree they shouldn't take up relations with other people or finally have sex.

I think that's terribly strong to me.

What do you reckon?

 

[Phanatical]

They should get married.

 

[Lhyviathan]

is suppose to be?

is a contract?

under vow?

what would you say my boyfriends parents are doing? They've been together for decades, unmarried. They don't cheat on each other. They don't need a ceremony or a piece of paper to agree they shouldn't take up relations with other people or finally have sex.

I think that's terribly strong to me.

What do you reckon?

They're far more more married than many 'married' couples.

They just don't need an overblown ceremony, and a piece of paper to prove it to themselves.

 

[Rafy]

Funny that......Deus mean god in latin.


*Is in agreement with Asquithian

 

[ohne]

Love and sex are not so simply disconnected.

Do you have a gf ohne?

And many would simply consider the 'morals' of the catholic church rather 'immoral'.

Surely you can love someone without having sex with them (or vice-versa).

I agree that the definition of "moral" can be somewhat blurred. I think all we can do in life is what we think is right. Some people might well think "rampant sex", abortion etc. is right and this view is entirely legitimate. I think the main thing we can do is ensure that our actions do not harm others. I certainly wouldn't place casual sex on par with murder or anything like that. Nevertheless we all have to draw a line somewhere.

It is true to say that having sex outside of marriage does not harm anyone unless of course you practice abortion or some form of contraceptive such as the morning after pill in which case the child conceived would be affected. In that sense I think it is perfectly legitimate activity, provided the reasoning behind it is love rather than purely seeking pleasure.

Marriage refers to an offical comitment for two people to be together for life. I can understand this commitment can take place without two people being officially married although surely it is better for an official marriage to take place. I think divorce should be avoided at all costs, marriage really is something that leaves people better off if it is for life.

No I do not have a gf at present although let's just say in the past I have not practiced everything the Holy Father says I perhaps should have, although I have no intention of doing any of this again. Call me a hypocrite if you wish.

 

[ohne]

You can love someone without having sex with them. To truely know someone you have to be intimate. I'm not talking about one night stands. I"m talking about cimmitted serious long terms relationships. To truely know that person you have made an emotional committment too you need to be intimate in order to know them better.

Thats through sex/sexual relations...and there is nothing better for creating a total level of trust between partners if it is imtiminate sexually because for most people it is the most private things you can do with another. A high level of trust is needed.

I do not dispute this. My point is simply that you do not need to have sex with another person to make a lifetime commitment to them. Yes there is a difference between love and love and sex although the sex part can certainly take place after a commitment of love has been made.

I understand people can probably feel differently about this. Your point about sex and the high level of trust being needed is a valid one. I certainly wouldn't accept a view, however, like "you need to take a car for a test drive before you buy it". Views like this tend to emphasise that sex is more important than love.

 

[phemale_souljah]

I would argue that the fundamentalists and the extremeists are in fact the same person, in this context at least.

very true my friend very true...
we are all fundamentalists to a certain extent (the washing of the feet etc) and there are, in the bible 'window parables' but to take the fundamentalist view to its very core of practice would be more verging extremism

 

[Rafy]

Precisely.

 

[Rafy]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/25/pope.monday/index.html

 

[imhere4themusic]

There are so many arrogant people out there, and I'm not one of them. You keep saying christians avoid the question and make up feeble arguments. If we are so wrong, where is your evidence? Why did god create the world in 6 days instead of just one? Who knows, who cares. Because he can, simple. It's like asking why do men have penises and women vaginas, why not the other way around? I'm not trying to force a view I'm just sick of people who don't believe in what I believe in trying to debunk my theories with no evidence of their own and then stating we have no argument. People grow up, if you wanna debate come up with some facts, that's what Deus seems to be so hooked on anyway. How do you know you are right?

I don't think I'm right it's what I believe in, but why should you debunk my ideas just because you believe you're right instead? How can you have any more proof than I? We are all at the same amount of knowing to me.

 

[ur_inner_child]

^what?

in conclusion: calm down

 

[jennylim]

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/25/pope.monday/index.html

your point?

 

[Rafy]

There are so many arrogant people out there? The irony clearly escaped him.

If you want to debate, come up with some FACTS yourself, instead of creating some emotionally charged ramble.

And yes I would agrue there is more evidence to support some things in the bible being incorrect (the creation thing especially)

and no i never said i was right, and my word was the final word. I was merely exploring the possiblilities to disturb people to asses their faith.

lmao dont know why i triggered that response i thought my arguments were quite rationale and logical.

But i suppose your response is the typical response of a diehard religious person who just cant stand their views being questioned. Well learn to hear a different point of view.

 

[imhere4themusic]

There are so many arrogant people out there? The irony clearly escaped him.

If you want to debate, come up with some FACTS yourself, instead of creating some emotionally charged ramble.

And yes I would agrue there is more evidence to support some things in the bible being incorrect (the creation thing especially)

and no i never said i was right, and my word was the final word. I was merely exploring the possiblilities to disturb people to asses their faith.

lmao dont know why i triggered that response i thought my arguments were quite rationale and logical.

But i suppose your response is the typical response of a diehard religious person who just cant stand their views being questioned. Well learn to hear a different point of view.

This is exactly what I mean, I am not a diehard religious, I don't care if you don't believe in what I do you are just doing what you accused me of.

FACT: Believe it or not, there is a bible. Whether you believe it or not it is still there, it is up for interpretation. Thats's all you have to know. The facts I know you're thinking about I know are no more credible than this. I'm not copping out, all the evidence a christian needs is in that book. Everything else around them fits into it. I had a different point of view. I still do, I'm still in two minds. You can't just believe that you a re right though, no more than anyone else. You can say creation doesn't work.. but how? Give me proof it doesn't work then I'll give you proof of Evolution. I DO believe in Evolution, but the thing is it is just a theory and you will never know if you're right. The whole point to my "emotionally charged ramble" was to point it out. I'm not arrogant, not christian(if you choose to believe that or not).. I just can't stand to see people like you degrade others. Why make people assess their faith unless you somehow see them as lower and stupid? Why can't you accept their point of view and not try to change it. I'm not trying to change yours I'm trying to show you how people base theirs, and how it can prove to be believable. Tell me how the argument is not rationale and logical and again I'll show you how it is.