The Church is responsible for over population in the Phils.

[benign0]

---

And considering having "impure thoughts" a sin is bizarre -- not because teenagers beg to differ but because nobody can ever claim to have a total lack of impure thoughts - specially teenagers who are at a stage in life where having impure thoughts is more the rule than the exception. Yet the church condemns those who do. Tsk tsk. Talk about unreasonable.

Well, nobody can ever claimed to have a total lack of incorrect answers in algebra, especially high school freshmen who are at a stage in life where having errors in computation is more the rule than the exception, yet the algebra teacher (heck, even the algebra tutor) condemns those who make mistakes in algebra, like say -3 - [-4(9-(-6)/2)] = -45. Tsk, tsk. Talk about "unreasonable". Shame on you algebra teachers and tutors! I'll never go to school again!

Peace, so be it.

Pinoy logic at its best.

I don't think I've ever seen an algebra teacher actually "condemning" kids to hell for not having the right answer to an equation...


----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

Pinoy logic at its best.I don't think I've ever seen an algebra teacher actually "condemning" kids to hell for not having the right answer to an equation...

That's precisely because you do not understand logic at all. The Church cares for what happens to your soul. Your algebra teacher cares what happens to your reputation, your career, even your mortal skin, in applying wrong answers to a doing a payroll or planning a bridge. Study how to reason. Study logic.

[benign0]

Pinoy logic at its best.I don't think I've ever seen an algebra teacher actually "condemning" kids to hell for not having the right answer to an equation...

That's precisely because you do not understand logic at all. The Church cares for what happens to your soul. Your algebra teacher cares what happens to your reputation, your career, even your mortal skin, in applying wrong answers to a doing a payroll or planning a bridge. Study how to reason. Study logic.

But that is the Church's interpretation of what happens to our "soul" -- that it'd go to hell if we have "impure thoughts". If you are truly a logical person, then you'd dig deeper into that assumption -- going to hell for having "impure thoughts" is one big assumption which truly logical people will not simply accept at face value.

From your statement above, you build what you think is a "logical" argument on one big assumption -- that people go to hell for having "impure thoughts". The whole basis for this "caring" that you imagine the Church harbours for our sorry lot is based on this whopper of an assumption. In fact, the entire Church itself and all its convoluted dogmatic framework is built on a number of really sketchy assumptions -- and numero uno among these sketchy assumptions is that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions (conditions which, not surprisingly, the Church has a regulatory monopoly over -- go figure).

You study logic, dude.




:P

-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[dacs]

But that is the Church's interpretation of what happens to our "soul" -- that it'd go to hell if we have "impure thoughts". If you are truly a logical person, then you'd dig deeper into that assumption -- going to hell for having "impure thoughts" is one big assumption which truly logical people will not simply accept at face value.

Have you dug deeper, dude? Have you read what St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about human sexuality? Your kind of 'logic' cannot even compare to these two minds considered to be - by both the secular and the religious world - the best mind that ever came into being. Read their writings, dude, and maybe we can see some hope in your arguments.

From your statement above, you build what you think is a "logical" argument on one big assumption -- that people go to hell for having "impure thoughts". The whole basis for this "caring" that you imagine the Church harbours for our sorry lot is based on this whopper of an assumption. In fact, the entire Church itself and all its convoluted dogmatic framework is built on a number of really sketchy assumptions --

Oh, brother! You are assuming that what were presented to you are assumptions. They are not. Let me point you to the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Start with the Summa Theologica.

and numero uno among these sketchy assumptions is that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions (conditions which, not surprisingly, the Church has a regulatory monopoly over -- go figure).

You study logic, dude.

Here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is its official teaching. This is taken from Part 3 : Life In Christ (Section 2; Chapter 2, Article 6, III). After reading, please tell us where it says that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions?

[size=14px]III. The Love of Husband and Wife

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." and they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."146 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. the covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.147 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."148

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's given word. God is faithful. the Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ's fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us.... I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.149

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"150 teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."156

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."160

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law.

The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.162

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.


142 FC 11.
143 ⇒ Tob 8:4-9.
144 GS 49 # 2.
145 Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951.
146 GS 48 # 1.
147 Cf. ⇒ CIC, can. 1056.
148 Mk 109; cf. ⇒ Mt 19:1-12; ⇒ 1 Cor 7: 10-11.
149 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20, 8: PG 62, 146-147.
150 FC 30.
151 HV 11.
152 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.
153 Cf. ⇒ Eph 3:14; ⇒ Mt 23:9.
154 GS 50 # 2.
155 GS 51 # 3.
156 Cf. HV 12.
157 HV 16.
158 HV 14.
159 FC 32.
160 GS 51 # 4.
161 Cf. HV 23; PP 37.
162 Cf. GS 50 # 2.
163 ⇒ Gen 15:2.
164 ⇒ Gen 30:1.
165 CDF, Donum vitae intro., 2.
166 CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.
167 CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.
168 CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.
169 CDF, Donum vitae II, 8.[/size]

[benign0]

But that is the Church's interpretation of what happens to our "soul" -- that it'd go to hell if we have "impure thoughts". If you are truly a logical person, then you'd dig deeper into that assumption -- going to hell for having "impure thoughts" is one big assumption which truly logical people will not simply accept at face value.

Have you dug deeper, dude? Have you read what St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about human sexuality? Your kind of 'logic' cannot even compare to these two minds considered to be - by both the secular and the religious world - the best mind that ever came into being. Read their writings, dude, and maybe we can see some hope in your arguments.

From your statement above, you build what you think is a "logical" argument on one big assumption -- that people go to hell for having "impure thoughts". The whole basis for this "caring" that you imagine the Church harbours for our sorry lot is based on this whopper of an assumption. In fact, the entire Church itself and all its convoluted dogmatic framework is built on a number of really sketchy assumptions --

Oh, brother! You are assuming that what were presented to you are assumptions. They are not. Let me point you to the writings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Start with the Summa Theologica.

and numero uno among these sketchy assumptions is that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions (conditions which, not surprisingly, the Church has a regulatory monopoly over -- go figure).

You study logic, dude.

Here is an excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is its official teaching. This is taken from Part 3 : Life In Christ (Section 2; Chapter 2, Article 6, III). After reading, please tell us where it says that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions?

[size=14px]III. The Love of Husband and Wife

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers.... You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." and they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.143

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145

2363 The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."146 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. the covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.147 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."148

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one's given word. God is faithful. the Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ's fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us.... I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.149

The fecundity of marriage

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which "is on the side of life"150 teaches that "each and every marriage act must remain open 'per se' to the transmission of life."151 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."152

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.153 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."154

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.155

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."156

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny."160

2372 The state has a responsibility for its citizens' well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. the state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.161 It is not authorized to intervene in this area with means contrary to the moral law.

The gift of a child

2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church's traditional practice see in large families a sign of God's blessing and the parents' generosity.162

2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163 and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164

2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses' "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."166

2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. the act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."167 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."168

2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. the "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."169

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord's Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.


142 FC 11.
143 ⇒ Tob 8:4-9.
144 GS 49 # 2.
145 Pius XII, Discourse, October 29,1951.
146 GS 48 # 1.
147 Cf. ⇒ CIC, can. 1056.
148 Mk 109; cf. ⇒ Mt 19:1-12; ⇒ 1 Cor 7: 10-11.
149 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20, 8: PG 62, 146-147.
150 FC 30.
151 HV 11.
152 HV 12; cf. Pius XI, encyclical, Casti connubii.
153 Cf. ⇒ Eph 3:14; ⇒ Mt 23:9.
154 GS 50 # 2.
155 GS 51 # 3.
156 Cf. HV 12.
157 HV 16.
158 HV 14.
159 FC 32.
160 GS 51 # 4.
161 Cf. HV 23; PP 37.
162 Cf. GS 50 # 2.
163 ⇒ Gen 15:2.
164 ⇒ Gen 30:1.
165 CDF, Donum vitae intro., 2.
166 CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.
167 CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.
168 CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.
169 CDF, Donum vitae II, 8.[/size]

That's real great copy-and-paste research, champ.

But I never said that *** outside of marriage (or for that matter outside of the context of mutual commitment and trust) should be encouraged.

My line of reasoning has to do more with the concept of being condemened to hell when one "entertains" impure thoughts.

Don't worry, you are simply experiencing a common pitfall in intellectual discourse -- whipping out the old school books before understanding the concepts being discussed.



Take this little bit of advise from the venerable IBM: Think.





-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

Guess again. Governing entities are not necessarily the najority. PLus I alreadt cited one candidate for bozo-hood.

If you somehow think one example is enough, then maybe you ought to be another candidate. You must show that the Church as a whole (since you made a general statement about the Church, not just a part of it) is governed by bozos. That includes the Pope, the Curia, the Synods that elected the last two Popes, and at least the 2nd Vatican Council. You haven't even made a dent. You are obviously making unfounded, sweeping statements.

Those "sweeping generalisations" I make? Prove they are false too.

Now your rational faculties seem to be impaired. I don't have to prive them false. YOU have to prove them true. You are the one making the accusations.

And considering having "impure thoughts" a sin is bizarre -- not because teenagers beg to differ but because nobody can ever claim to have a total lack of impure thoughts.

You obviously haven't a clue on what the Church teaches about impure thoughts, do you? Simply having them is not a sin. Entertaining and seeking them is. You can't control ramdom thoughts, but you CAN control deliberate ones.

You really should take time to understand a doctrine before attacking it. You will look a little more intelligent that way.

And take your own advice: THINK.

[robearthFX]

mag $%^& mo...... pasanginlan man hinuon ang simbahan.......

[benign0]

Guess again. Governing entities are not necessarily the najority. PLus I alreadt cited one candidate for bozo-hood.

If you somehow think one example is enough, then maybe you ought to be another candidate. You must show that the Church as a whole (since you made a general statement about the Church, not just a part of it) is governed by bozos. That includes the Pope, the Curia, the Synods that elected the last two Popes, and at least the 2nd Vatican Council. You haven't even made a dent. You are obviously making unfounded, sweeping statements.

Instead of trying to impress us with your knowledge of Vatican-speak, think of it in these simple terms, dude:

If Jesus Christ were alive today and met the Pope and his cardinals for the first time, what do you think would be his first question:

Here is my guess:

"Dudes, what's with the outfits and the big house?"

If you were the Pope or one of these cardinals, how would you answer that question from The Man Behind the Religion himself?

Those "sweeping generalisations" I make? Prove they are false too.

Now your rational faculties seem to be impaired. I don't have to prive them false. YOU have to prove them true. You are the one making the accusations.

Tough luck, dude. I hereby assert them to be true until you prove them false.

And considering having "impure thoughts" a sin is bizarre -- not because teenagers beg to differ but because nobody can ever claim to have a total lack of impure thoughts.

You obviously haven't a clue on what the Church teaches about impure thoughts, do you? Simply having them is not a sin. Entertaining and seeking them is. You can't control ramdom thoughts, but you CAN control deliberate ones.

You really should take time to understand a doctrine before attacking it. You will look a little more intelligent that way.

And take your own advice: THINK.

And I suggest you step back a bit from "doctorine" and start thinking out of the square. Yours is a classic example of a mind that's been imprisoned by institution and tradition.

Here is a famous story about the venerable (and Catholic-educated) commedian Gary Lising:

Gary Lising entered a confessional box and told the priest he was having "impure thoughts". The priest asked him, "Son, did you entertain these thoughts?". Lising then responded, "No Father, they entertained me.". The priest was said to have burst out of the confessional box laughing.

Moral of the story: once you start taking doctorine out of the proper context, you start to become a bit brain-dead. For example, where do you draw the line between "deliberately" entertaining thoughts and "simply having" them? Different people have different mental capacities to "control" their inner thoughts. Practioners of meditation go through years of training and development of self-discipline before they can even do a simple thing as clearing their mind of random thoughts.

Lawyers know the Law by heart. But do they now the spirit behind the Law? They don't. Instead, they use loopholes in the letter to pervert it to their ends. In the same way, many Pinoys observe Church doctorine to the letter. But do they practice Christianity in spirit?


Food for thought, champ.




-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[HoundedbyHeaven]

But that is the Church's interpretation of what happens to our "soul" -- that it'd go to hell if we have "impure thoughts". If you are truly a logical person, then you'd dig deeper into that assumption -- going to hell for having "impure thoughts" is one big assumption which truly logical people will not simply accept at face value.

From your statement above, you build what you think is a "logical" argument on one big assumption -- that people go to hell for having "impure thoughts". The whole basis for this "caring" that you imagine the Church harbours for our sorry lot is based on this whopper of an assumption. In fact, the entire Church itself and all its convoluted dogmatic framework is built on a number of really sketchy assumptions-- and numero uno among these sketchy assumptions is that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions (conditions which, not surprisingly, the Church has a regulatory monopoly over -- [i]go figure.

Oh, I have dug deeper and reached rock bottom, that is I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was truly given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach without error on matters of faith and morals. She teaches "having impure thoughts" can land you in hell then "having impure thoughts" can land you in hell. It's not an assumption, it is the teaching of Christ Himself. I have faith in Christ's teachings through the Church just as you have faith in believing "having impure thoughts" won't land you in hell.

You study logic, dude.

Study ka nga.

[benign0]

But that is the Church's interpretation of what happens to our "soul" -- that it'd go to hell if we have "impure thoughts". If you are truly a logical person, then you'd dig deeper into that assumption -- going to hell for having "impure thoughts" is one big assumption which truly logical people will not simply accept at face value.

From your statement above, you build what you think is a "logical" argument on one big assumption -- that people go to hell for having "impure thoughts". The whole basis for this "caring" that you imagine the Church harbours for our sorry lot is based on this whopper of an assumption. In fact, the entire Church itself and all its convoluted dogmatic framework is built on a number of really sketchy assumptions-- and numero uno among these sketchy assumptions is that *** is inherently an impure human condition that needs to be severely suppressed and practiced under extremely controlled conditions (conditions which, not surprisingly, the Church has a regulatory monopoly over -- [i]go figure.

Oh, I have dug deeper and reached rock bottom, that is I have come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was truly given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach without error on matters of faith and morals. She teaches "having impure thoughts" can land you in hell then "having impure thoughts" can land you in hell. It's not an assumption, it is the teaching of Christ Himself. I have faith in Christ's teachings through the Church just as you have faith in believing "having impure thoughts" won't land you in hell.

You study logic, dude.

Study ka nga.

Really now.

And how exactly did you come to this conclusion that "the Catholic Church was truly given the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ to teach without error on matters of faith and morals"?

Enlighten us heathens please so that we may be saved from our wretched ignorance on matters of faith.


----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.