Question about Islam.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

Of course, which is why people should think with their brains and choose their own paths. The core beliefs are universal though and schools of thought only really differ on small things. I strongly belive in the importance of learning from someone who is educated. If people did that, none of the drama in the world today would even exist.

RationalAtheist

There is a fundamental division in Islam between Sunni and Shia, isn't there?

People get well educated in universities, rather than Madrasahs.

The Sunni and Shia division is the only one that can even be considered a division really and again the core of the religion is the same. The disagreement there regards who should have succeeded the Prophet to lead the Muslims at that time he passed. The core teachings of the religion are identical.

Also, the split is like 85% to 10% so it's not as significant as say Catholicism and Protestantism.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] And yet you're the one that comprehend that Condom Use is a sin in his own Faith?

Nuck81

The Sunni and Shia division is the only one that can even be considered a division really and again the core of the religion is the same. The disagreement there regards who should have succeeded the Prophet to lead the Muslims at that time he passed. The core teachings of the religion are identical.

Also, the split is like 85% to 10% so it's not as significant as say Catholicism and Protestantism.

Asim90

There are other sorts of Islam besides those. I don't see why percentages matter either.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

How has all this independant thought conjoined at the Bahai faith?

I wonder at how independantly you can think when you try and connect all of the worlds main religions.

LJS9502_basic

Well the three Abrahamic Religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) are connected anyway to an extent.

Well I suppose the link is that both recognise Jesus as an important figure. Muslims obviously recognise him as a Prophet sent to deliver a message where as Christians consider him God himself. The Qur'an also refers to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book" and praises them for that. There is definitely a connection, albeit its not huge.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

The Sunni and Shia division is the only one that can even be considered a division really and again the core of the religion is the same. The disagreement there regards who should have succeeded the Prophet to lead the Muslims at that time he passed. The core teachings of the religion are identical.

Also, the split is like 85% to 10% so it's not as significant as say Catholicism and Protestantism.

RationalAtheist

There are other sorts of Islam besides those. I don't see why percentages matter either.

You don't see why percentages matter? Obviously they matter because if there was a small group of 1% that conflict with the 99% that would be a lot different to there being a 50/50 disagreement, it shows there is more unity within the faith, not that different groups cant live in unity but I'm sure you get the point.

And yes there are other sorts, thats my point. What is your point?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Asim90"]

Well the three Abrahamic Religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) are connected anyway to an extent.

Asim90

Well I suppose the link is that both recognise Jesus as an important figure. Muslims obviously recognise him as a Prophet sent to deliver a message where as Christians consider him God himself. The Qur'an also refers to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book" and praises them for that. There is definitely a connection, albeit its not huge.

TBH I see the connection as a tool to get the interest of people that were of the other two religions and nothing more.LJS9502_basic

I'm not sure we'll ever get to know the reasons.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Dude how dense are you? EXCEPTION means not a sin. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an EXCEPTION. Duh.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I know they are purported to be....but I can't see how Islam follows after Christianity. Not if one understands Christianity anyway....LJS9502_basic

Well I suppose the link is that both recognise Jesus as an important figure. Muslims obviously recognise him as a Prophet sent to deliver a message where as Christians consider him God himself. The Qur'an also refers to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book" and praises them for that. There is definitely a connection, albeit its not huge.

Hmm.. I think its a little deeper than that. Jesus is mentioned by name more in the Qur'an than Muhammad. Muslims also believe he will come back to Earth like the Christians do. He's a huge figure in Islam, so its much more than interesting others.

You say that with no understanding of what I've provided, no counter evidence provided by yourself. Just saying "I'm right" I am not in error, I have provided evidence that I am not in error, you have not done so other than apparently you're opinion > than the pope and the catholic church.Nuck81

I think you badly misrepresent the view of the Pope and the Catholic church over this issue.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Asim90"]

Well I suppose the link is that both recognise Jesus as an important figure. Muslims obviously recognise him as a Prophet sent to deliver a message where as Christians consider him God himself. The Qur'an also refers to Christians and Jews as "People of the Book" and praises them for that. There is definitely a connection, albeit its not huge.

Asim90

Hmm.. I think its a little deeper than that. Jesus is mentioned by name more in the Qur'an than Muhammad. Muslims also believe he will come back to Earth like the Christians do. He's a huge figure in Islam, so its much more than interesting others.

Hmm.. I think its a little deeper than that. Jesus is mentioned by name more in the Qur'an than Muhammad. Muslims also believe he will come back to Earth like the Christians do. He's a huge figure in Islam, so its much more than interesting others.

Asim90

It's no surprise, considering the similar roots of those faiths. It's the same thing with the Latter Day Saints, who also build on the Judo-Christian prophetic tradition.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] :roll: How many times does it have to be said. Condom use EVEN in the instance of preventing HIV is STILL a sin. The Pope said it, all the commentary said it, everyone says it but you. The Pope said that in using a condom to prevent the use of HIV for a male prostitute is the lesser of two evils. IT"S STILL EVIL THOUGH. Then it was stated quite clearly that, "He's not changing Church teaching" "in itself the act is still immoral." Condom use is still immoral, there is not changing of Church teaching, the Pope simply acknowledged that it was better to commit the sin of using a condom than commit the sin of spreading HIV.Nuck81

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]TBH I see the connection as a tool to get the interest of people that were of the other two religions and nothing more.LJS9502_basic

Hmm.. I think its a little deeper than that. Jesus is mentioned by name more in the Qur'an than Muhammad. Muslims also believe he will come back to Earth like the Christians do. He's a huge figure in Islam, so its much more than interesting others.

That's fine! I suppose thats a cynical way of looking at it but a fair point. I couldn't comment on the NT since I haven't read it myself but the Islamic perspective is that those texts have been altered by humans through time which is why the final prophet was sent.

One thing that always gets me thinking about this very topic however is how some people accuse Islam of wanting to exterminate Jews and Christians when you yourself said you view it as a tie in to attract those very people. From my perspective those people are honoured in the religion and there is definitely a brotherhood there.

Anyway, to a certain degree its an extention of the same religion, especially since the foundations bear heavy similarities with prophets like Moses and Noah and whatnot.

You don't see why percentages matter? Obviously they matter because if there was a small group of 1% that conflict with the 99% that would be a lot different to there being a 50/50 disagreement, it shows there is more unity within the faith, not that different groups cant live in unity but I'm sure you get the point.

And yes there are other sorts, thats my point. What is your point?

Asim90

I thought you were arguing for unity within the faith, whereas I was showing the divisions within it. If 1% of people believe something different to your 99%, that is no reason to force them to believe your religion. Percentages do matter if they represent people that matter, rather than reasons for exluding, or ignoring them. I thought the share was 15/85 anyway.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Asim90"]

Hmm.. I think its a little deeper than that. Jesus is mentioned by name more in the Qur'an than Muhammad. Muslims also believe he will come back to Earth like the Christians do. He's a huge figure in Islam, so its much more than interesting others.

Asim90

That's fine! I suppose thats a cynical way of looking at it but a fair point. I couldn't comment on the NT since I haven't read it myself but the Islamic perspective is that those texts have been altered by humans through time which is why the final prophet was sent.

One thing that always gets me thinking about this very topic however is how some people accuse Islam of wanting to exterminate Jews and Christians when you yourself said you view it as a tie in to attract those very people. From my perspective those people are honoured in the religion and there is definitely a brotherhood there.

Anyway, to a certain degree its an extention of the same religion, especially since the foundations bear heavy similarities with prophets like Moses and Noah and whatnot.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

You don't see why percentages matter? Obviously they matter because if there was a small group of 1% that conflict with the 99% that would be a lot different to there being a 50/50 disagreement, it shows there is more unity within the faith, not that different groups cant live in unity but I'm sure you get the point.

And yes there are other sorts, thats my point. What is your point?

RationalAtheist

I thought you were arguing for unity within the faith, whereas I was showing the divisions within it. If 1% of people believe something different to your 99%, that is no reason to force them to believe your religion.

I agree with you. That is what I said. Different interpration and collective thought should be encouraged. Maybe read my post?

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Around in circles you go...clinging to your error even after I explained what he was talking about. Dude....you don't get it. You're making a fool of yourself....and it's tedious.

LJS9502_basic

That is why you continually dodge the quotes and statements I provide. You're only answer is "Dude, you don't get it" That's a dodge. Explain the statements, provide proof for you explanations. You won't do so because you are incorrect.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] You say that with no understanding of what I've provided, no counter evidence provided by yourself. Just saying "I'm right" I am not in error, I have provided evidence that I am not in error, you have not done so other than apparently you're opinion > than the pope and the catholic church.Nuck81

Edit: Saw your edit. I haven't dodged anything. I've explained. I've quoted. I've given Scripture. You don't get it. Why should I continue to repeat myself when you've already shown an inability to comprehend?

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Ah but if I wanted to start a religion....I would tie it into a current religion. Easier to convert that way.. The NT in no way allows for more prophets. So Muhammad could not be a continuation of that religion. Not trying to pick on your faith. Just explaining why I don't believe the tie in.LJS9502_basic

That's fine! I suppose thats a cynical way of looking at it but a fair point. I couldn't comment on the NT since I haven't read it myself but the Islamic perspective is that those texts have been altered by humans through time which is why the final prophet was sent.

One thing that always gets me thinking about this very topic however is how some people accuse Islam of wanting to exterminate Jews and Christians when you yourself said you view it as a tie in to attract those very people. From my perspective those people are honoured in the religion and there is definitely a brotherhood there.

Anyway, to a certain degree its an extention of the same religion, especially since the foundations bear heavy similarities with prophets like Moses and Noah and whatnot.

Hmm.. I disagree. If an individual follows a religion they're doing it out of choice especially since the said religion states their is no compulsion in religion. Now, if you are living a life that you believe in your heart to be right and you are inviting others to it peacefully.. that's not extermination is it? In a way its charity.

I suppose you're right when you said it depends on intention. Pretty much everything depends on intention, if only we could see peoples intentions! :P

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

You don't see why percentages matter? Obviously they matter because if there was a small group of 1% that conflict with the 99% that would be a lot different to there being a 50/50 disagreement, it shows there is more unity within the faith, not that different groups cant live in unity but I'm sure you get the point.

And yes there are other sorts, thats my point. What is your point?

Asim90

I thought you were arguing for unity within the faith, whereas I was showing the divisions within it. If 1% of people believe something different to your 99%, that is no reason to force them to believe your religion.

I agree with you. That is what I said. Different interpration and collective thought should be encouraged. Maybe read my post?

You were talking about learning from someone who is educated. I assumed you meant in the faith of Islam, so I was pointing out there there are many versions of it. I disgree about the universal truth of Islam, since many Shias deny that Sunni is Islamic and vice-versa.

So perhaps you should read you own posts, since you seemed to encourage "learning" in a Madrasah, or something (ignoring my comment about universities).

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

I thought you were arguing for unity within the faith, whereas I was showing the divisions within it. If 1% of people believe something different to your 99%, that is no reason to force them to believe your religion.

RationalAtheist

I agree with you. That is what I said. Different interpration and collective thought should be encouraged. Maybe read my post?

You were talking about learning from someone who is educated. I assumed you meant in the faith of Islam, so I was pointing out there there are many versions of it. I disgree about the universal truth of Islam, since many Shias deny that Sunni is Islamic and vice-versa.

So perhaps you should read you own posts, since you seemed to encourage "learning" in a Madrasah, or something (ignoring my comment about universities).

I've already answered these points. Yes people should learn from people who are educated, thats not exclusive to Islam. Yes different people have different opinions which is why different people should discuss things collectively and peacefully and then the individual can make their own choice. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No I posted what the Pope said. I explained what that means vis a vis how Catholic Doctrine is established. And I gave you Scripture showing you where that authority came from. Hint....it was Jesus. I also explained the difference between the exception of condom usage vs promiscuity. It's not my fault that is all over your head and you didn't understand any of it. And again dude. Just stop. You really are making a fool of yourself over this. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

I agree with you. That is what I said. Different interpration and collective thought should be encouraged. Maybe read my post?

Asim90

You were talking about learning from someone who is educated. I assumed you meant in the faith of Islam, so I was pointing out there there are many versions of it. I disgree about the universal truth of Islam, since many Shias deny that Sunni is Islamic and vice-versa.

So perhaps you should read you own posts, since you seemed to encourage "learning" in a Madrasah, or something (ignoring my comment about universities).

I've already answered these points. Yes people should learn from people who are educated, thats not exclusive to Islam. Yes different people have different opinions which is why different people should discuss things collectively and peacefully and then the individual can make their own choice. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

That sounds like a rather un-Islamic sentiment. You have not been repeating yourself.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Asim90"]

That's fine! I suppose thats a cynical way of looking at it but a fair point. I couldn't comment on the NT since I haven't read it myself but the Islamic perspective is that those texts have been altered by humans through time which is why the final prophet was sent.

One thing that always gets me thinking about this very topic however is how some people accuse Islam of wanting to exterminate Jews and Christians when you yourself said you view it as a tie in to attract those very people. From my perspective those people are honoured in the religion and there is definitely a brotherhood there.

Anyway, to a certain degree its an extention of the same religion, especially since the foundations bear heavy similarities with prophets like Moses and Noah and whatnot.

Asim90

Hmm.. I disagree. If an individual follows a religion they're doing it out of choice especially since the said religion states their is no compulsion in religion. Now, if you are living a life that you believe in your heart to be right and you are inviting others to it peacefully.. that's not extermination is it? In a way its charity.

I suppose you're right when you said it depends on intention. Pretty much everything depends on intention, if only we could see peoples intentions! :P

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nuck81"] I don't look like a fool to anyone. I am not the one that can't comprehend basic english in Written form. I understand the Popes authority, I also understand what the Pope said, and that's where you're incorrect. You have not proven anything other than you believe that Condoms are not a Sin in the Catholic Church when they clearly are.

Nuck81

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

You were talking about learning from someone who is educated. I assumed you meant in the faith of Islam, so I was pointing out there there are many versions of it. I disgree about the universal truth of Islam, since many Shias deny that Sunni is Islamic and vice-versa.

So perhaps you should read you own posts, since you seemed to encourage "learning" in a Madrasah, or something (ignoring my comment about universities).

RationalAtheist

I've already answered these points. Yes people should learn from people who are educated, thats not exclusive to Islam. Yes different people have different opinions which is why different people should discuss things collectively and peacefully and then the individual can make their own choice. I'm not going to repeat myself again.

That sounds like a rather un-Islamic sentiment.

Please expand. Also, yes I have been repeating myself. Go back a few posts and you will see I've been saying the same thing for so long, you just cant get it among other things.

Edit: If you do respond I'll get back to you tomorrow since I must end this discussion for now.

[QUOTE="Asim90"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] most religions want to convert. Can't think of any that don't. Not saying that's bad. Depends on the intentions of the individual in that regard. Most think they are doing a service...but that would "exterminate" Jewish Faith and Christianity would it not to convert them to Islam? LJS9502_basic

Hmm.. I disagree. If an individual follows a religion they're doing it out of choice especially since the said religion states their is no compulsion in religion. Now, if you are living a life that you believe in your heart to be right and you are inviting others to it peacefully.. that's not extermination is it? In a way its charity.

I suppose you're right when you said it depends on intention. Pretty much everything depends on intention, if only we could see peoples intentions! :P

I whole heartedly salute you for that. We need more people like this in the world.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Here's something to chew on...the Pope is not telling people to sin. He'd rather they not. But he gave an exception to the condom rule so as to protect the health of individuals that choose to lead promiscuous lives. In no way is the Pope going to tell people to sin. Now wrap you small brain around that for awhile and let me know if you can figure it out.LJS9502_basic

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Please expand. Also, yes I have been repeating myself. Go back a few posts and you will see I've been saying the same thing for so long, you just cant get it among other things.

Asim90

I thought you were referring to people educatied in Islam like this:

Another funny thing is that Islam encourages teaching, it stresses that religion should be continued by scholars who are versed in the religion and teach it. Collective thought and interpration is encouraged for this reason.

Asim90

Islam encourages teaching by scholars who are versed in it does not agree with collective thought and encouragement of interpretation. So if you have been saying the same thing, you can't have been putting it across very well.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]You poor fool. That is not at all what the Pope said. You are missing a point that you dodge post after post after post. The Pope never said that Condom use was not a sin. He said that if you wear a condom in the hopes of preventing the spread of disease than you are showing the beginnings of moral fiber. He NEVER said, it's ok to bang with a condom if you don't want the AIDS. He said that wearing a condom was the LESSER of two sins. But condom use is still a sin. Please dodge it again with a "dude, you're wrong, please stop."Nuck81

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]You poor fool. That is not at all what the Pope said. You are missing a point that you dodge post after post after post. The Pope never said that Condom use was not a sin. He said that if you wear a condom in the hopes of preventing the spread of disease than you are showing the beginnings of moral fiber. He NEVER said, it's ok to bang with a condom if you don't want the AIDS. He said that wearing a condom was the LESSER of two sins. But condom use is still a sin. Please dodge it again with a "dude, you're wrong, please stop."Nuck81

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Here's what the Pope actually said:

(from here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798)

"As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being."

It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] :lol: Are you racist, homophobic, and socially conservative by any chance? Any of the above?

LJS9502_basic

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Since you never did respond at any point, in any post to that direct quote and explanation other than "Dude, you're wrong" I'll take that as you had no response and were just trying to save face. As usual. A few days ago when I was beating you around in another thread you refused to go back and read a post that I had written because you knew it would prove you wrong, and yet you know expect the same from me? The difference is I know exactly what you have said, or more importantly what you haven't, and I've tried for several posts now to challenge you to directly respond what I'm asking, which you have refused to do.

If you're tired of me running you out of threads, then maybe you should stop challenging my statements...

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] :lol: Are you racist, homophobic, and socially conservative by any chance? Any of the above?

RationalAtheist

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Here's what the Pope actually said:

(from here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798)

"As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being."

It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] There you go again.

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Nuck81

Since you never did respond at any point, in any post to that direct quote and explanation other than "Dude, you're wrong" I'll take that as you had no response and were just trying to save face. As usual. A few days ago when I was beating you around in another thread you refused to go back and read a post that I had written because you knew it would prove you wrong, and yet you know expect the same from me? The difference is I know exactly what you have said, or more importantly what you haven't, and I've tried for several posts now to challenge you to directly respond what I'm asking, which you have refused to do.

If you're tired of me running you out of threads, then maybe you should stop challenging my statements...

As to the other thread....I had the same problem with you there. You're not very good at reading and absorbing information. But no one runs me out of threads. Ask RA.....I like to have the last word.;)

Since you never did respond at any point, in any post to that direct quote and explanation other than "Dude, you're wrong" I'll take that as you had no response and were just trying to save face. As usual. A few days ago when I was beating you around in another thread you refused to go back and read a post that I had written because you knew it would prove you wrong, and yet you know expect the same from me? The difference is I know exactly what you have said, or more importantly what you haven't, and I've tried for several posts now to challenge you to directly respond what I'm asking, which you have refused to do.

If you're tired of me running you out of threads, then maybe you should stop challenging my statements...

Nuck81

I think that's rather hypocritical coming from you, since it's exactly the behaviour you seem to exhibit yourself. Don't you see a problem with your own self-aggrandisement?

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"] There you go again.

Care to actually respond to the question at hand?

Nuck81

Here's what the Pope actually said:

(from here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798)

"As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being."

It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man.

Thank You for solidifying my stance!! No where does he say that Condom use is no longer a sin, even when preventing HIV. No where was I making a statement on the sins of man or judging, I just said condom use is a sin in the Catholic Church. And you have helped prove my point. I appreciate it. No maybe this LJ kid will come around too

Nuck81

Your over-simplistic statement is belied by the Pope's comments. There is a Catholic in this thread (Hi LJ) who also disagrees with you...

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Here's what the Pope actually said:

(from here:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804798)

"As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work.

This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man's being."

It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

Thank You for solidifying my stance!! No where does he say that Condom use is no longer a sin, even when preventing HIV. No where was I making a statement on the sins of man or judging, I just said condom use is a sin in the Catholic Church. And you have helped prove my point. I appreciate it. No maybe this LJ kid will come around too

RationalAtheist

Your over-simplistic statement is belied by the Pope's comments. There is a Catholic in this thread (Hi LJ) who also disagrees with you...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I think you might want to reread his last paragraph again. Just a thought.:lol:

Nuck81

LJ did not misrepresent you. You seemed to ignore my last paragraph disagreeing with you while thanking me for agreeing with you!

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

Thank You for solidifying my stance!! No where does he say that Condom use is no longer a sin, even when preventing HIV. No where was I making a statement on the sins of man or judging, I just said condom use is a sin in the Catholic Church. And you have helped prove my point. I appreciate it. No maybe this LJ kid will come around too

Nuck81

Your over-simplistic statement is belied by the Pope's comments. There is a Catholic in this thread (Hi LJ) who also disagrees with you...

You're very good with pictures. I hope you've paid the royalties.

Evasion.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

I think you might want to reread his last paragraph again. Just a thought.:lol:

RationalAtheist

LJ did not misrepresent you. You seemed to ignore my last paragraph disagreeing with you while thanking me for agreeing with you!

"It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man."

No where does the Pope say that wearing a condom is not a Sin. You pointing out positive human values is inline with what I said about people who use a condom are taking the first step in establishing a moral fiber. You then say I am unqualified to judge the sins of man. It was the Pope who said that Condom use was the lesser of two sins not me. Is he Qualified? But again those are not the Issue. The issue is Condoms are a sin in the Catholic church. Well, are they?Nuck81

No they are not - not after reading and understanding what the Pope has said and written about this topic. He was purposefully vague about the sinfulness, or lack of it, but wanted a step change in thinking in the Catholic church towards a greater understanding of human issues.

This view caused substantial uproar at the time it was made and I see it as a progressive step for the church to take. To deny a shift in Catholic thinking about sexual precautions shows a lack of understanding at these recent events.

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]

No they are not - not after reading and understanding what the Pope has said and written about this topic. He was purposefully vague about the sinfulness, or lack of it, but wanted a step change in thinking in the Catholic church towards a greater understanding of human issues.

This view caused substantial uproar at the time it was made and I see it as a progressive step for the church to take. To deny a shift in Catholic thinking about sexual precautions shows a lack of understanding at these recent events.

RationalAtheist

[QUOTE="Nuck81"]"It seems to me that you are falling into the doctrinal trap the Pope referred to; that is your "banalization of sexuality". It seems to me that your fixation on claiming all circumstances of condom-wearing a sin directly opposes the Pope's re-statement of positive human values on a person's being about sexuality. I regard you as being fairly unqualified to judge sins of man."

No where does the Pope say that wearing a condom is not a Sin. You pointing out positive human values is inline with what I said about people who use a condom are taking the first step in establishing a moral fiber. You then say I am unqualified to judge the sins of man. It was the Pope who said that Condom use was the lesser of two sins not me. Is he Qualified? But again those are not the Issue. The issue is Condoms are a sin in the Catholic church. Well, are they?RationalAtheist

No they are not - not after reading and understanding what the Pope has said and written about this topic. He was purposefully vague about the sinfulness, or lack of it, but wanted a step change in thinking in the Catholic church towards a greater understanding of human issues.

This view caused substantial uproar at the time it was made and I see it as a progressive step for the church to take. To deny a shift in Catholic thinking about sexual precautions shows a lack of understanding at these recent events.

Exception to that has been told to you several times now. No. Not in all cases is using a condom a sin.

Exception to that has been told to you several times now. No. Not in all cases is using a condom a sin.

This happened two years ago actually. So you admit that the Pope never actually said that Condom use was a Sin?

Exception to that has been told to you several times now. No. Not in all cases is using a condom a sin.Nuck81

Again you are incorrect. He never actual gave exceptions, he merely stated that there are times when using a condom is a lesser sin. But a sin nonetheless

Yes, I do admit that the Pope never actually said condom use was a sin. The problem is that you don't seem to.

The quote I gave suggests nothing of the "lesser sin", but as a method that should be encouraged and used with more humanity and situational awareness. I keep repeating that exceptions to sins are not sins.

Exception to that has been told to you several times now. No. Not in all cases is using a condom a sin.

The quote I gave suggests nothing of the "lesser sin", but as a method that should be encouraged and used with more humanity and situational awareness. I keep repeating that exceptions to sins are not sins.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nuck81"]

Exception to that has been told to you several times now. No. Not in all cases is using a condom a sin.Nuck81

Again you are incorrect. He never actual gave exceptions, he merely stated that there are times when using a condom is a lesser sin. But a sin nonetheless

The quote I gave suggests nothing of the "lesser sin", but as a method that should be encouraged and used with more humanity and situational awareness. I keep repeating that exceptions to sins are not sins.

Accusations of ignorance and repetition of the same denials don't really constitute substantive argument.