sex in heaven

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='jmjtina' date='Nov 26 2004, 01:46 PM'] Adam, You state that it's annoying when people get offended.....and yet [i]your offended[/i].


I have to agree with Pio Nono, you need to read some of his works, such as [i]Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility [/i]instead of isolated statements that obviously fuel your bias towards him. Read his stuff, then you'll be able to get a better grasp of what he is teaching and where many of us are coming from.

God Bless!

Todd! Peep the other thread about unitive and procreation.
hope it's warm in stubie! [/quote]
I don't feel like logging off, but Adam was reading over my shoulder, and he says:

A couple problems here. First of all, I never said that I was offended; I said that the Pope's theology is offensive. It's not the same thing. Plus, those are completely different connotations. Secondly, I don't possess the "offended" (and yet [b][i]your offended[/i][/b]). You need a verb somewhere. On a more serious note, I don't have time to address these points because I am not at home, but I will get to that when I can.

[mulls]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Nov 25 2004, 05:44 AM'] I also pray i can dunk from the foul line [/quote]

nah man, it's heaven, ya gotta think bigger....

let's say from half-court at least

[jmjtina]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 26 2004, 11:04 PM'] I don't feel like logging off, but Adam was reading over my shoulder, and he says:

A couple problems here. First of all, I never said that I was offended; I said that the Pope's theology is offensive. It's not the same thing. Plus, those are completely different connotations. Secondly, I don't possess the "offended" (and yet [b][i]your offended[/i][/b]). You need a verb somewhere. On a more serious note, I don't have time to address these points because I am not at home, but I will get to that when I can. [/quote]
:crackup:

ya'll are just like flowery and me. Don't ya hate it when they read over your shoulder? Only [i]my[/i] sibling kinda.........smells. :ph34r:

shhhhhhhhh, don't tell flowery........ :hide:

correcting my usage of the verbs, huh?

















have you read Love and Responsibility? or TOTB?

If not, you can't really state it's offensive if you haven't read his theology on marriage as a whole. well, I wouldn't.

Pax.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you haven't read [i]Theology of the Body[/i] and [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] you really can't have an informed opinon on the teaching.

Edited November 27, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:20 AM'] If you haven't read [i]Theology of the Body[/i] and [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] you really can't have an informed opinon on the teaching. [/quote]
Likely.

I love TOTB...:wub:

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/28 - First Sunday of Advent

As a man who bills himself as trying to be a philosopher, I feel I must step in here to clear something up.

People say that they are offended by the Pope's "theology" - the only theological work on the subject of sex that the Pope has printed is his [i]Theology of the Body[/i].

[u]Love and Responsibility[/u] is a [i]philosophical[/i] work. That means that his argumentation and conclusions all come from basic human reason, not from revealed truths. So, if you're offended by his [i]philosophy[/i], or don't agree with him, don't sit around like a monkey in a zoo, throwing feces at his work. Just because it's "new" or because it sounds offensive to modern ears (heavily influenced, by the way, by Victorian England) isn't a reason to dislike his philosophy.

If you disagree with the Pope, find one of his arguments and attack one of his premises - give me YOUR argument, since he has given you his. You can't just take a shotgun to the book and hope to be taken seriously. Find an argument, find a premise in the argument you don't like or don't agree with, and [i]construct an argument against it[/i]. Otherwise, deal with it.

I've spent a good amount of time studying the Pope's philosophical thought, and if you give him his basic assumption (that the human person is the kind of thing which must love and be loved), then everything in [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] follows.

I'm no theologian, so I can't address his [i]Theology of the Body[/i].

[Guest]

[quote name='mulls' date='Nov 26 2004, 11:10 PM']
nah man, it's heaven, ya gotta think bigger....

let's say from half-court at least [/quote]

[Guest JeffCR07]

Pio Nono, while I cannot yet call myself "theologian" or "philosopher" I am studying towards becoming both and I must say that I agree with your previous post. [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] is clearly a philosophical work, and, in my mind, his conclusions are both valid and sound. His work in the [i]Theology of the Body[/i] may be "new" in structure or presentation, but there is nothing unorthodox or contrary to the faith within it. In fact, rather than following the line of Anselm and creating an idea and then applying Scripture to it, the Holy Father's [i]Theology of the Body[/i] follows more in the line of the early Eastern Fathers, as it takes Holy Scripture as its basis and is constantly referring back to it. He draws heavily from Genesis and the letters of Paul. While I am certainly not an authority on the subject, or even in a position of mastery over the material, I must say that in my mind there is absolutely nothing in the Holy Father's [i]Theology of the Body[/i] that would lead one to consider it as being heterodox, or even in theological error, besides a natural bias against the subject matter itself.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Guest]

u guys are to smart -_-



God Bless

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
11/30 - St. Andrew

Bump - I want to see a well-prepared argument.

[Oik]

[quote]I understand that. My point is, in agreement with you, that they can't be two separate ends. This is why, (and I will have to better explain this later), it seems to me that NFP, at least on the practical level, tends toward a contraceptive mentality. It seems to practically seperate the two, even if giving a nod to the procreative. It seems to say "I am open to having kids" at the same time doing everything possible short of actual contraception, to not have kids. Is it possible to have two conflicting desires at the same time? Example:

Two married people desire the unitive act. They do not want to get pregnant at the time. They know they must be "open to life", so they wait until it is almost impossible to naturally conceive to engage in the unitive act? We even refer to NFP in terms of its effictiveness to prevent pregency. This seems to be possible only if we are taking the act in itself as a good apart from the procreative aspect. Thus we have two separate ends. I may very well be missing something here, but I can't think of what it would be. Any help?[/quote]

Is a mother who breastfeeds tending toward the contraceptive mentality while giving a nod to the procreative?

Ecological breastfeeding can and does supress ovulation. So, if a woman and her husband want to share the marital embrace while procreation is impossible infact partking in an act that is tending toward the contraceptive mentality?

Since NFP is always open to life, it itself cannot ever tend towards being against life, aka contraceptive.

[vianney]

Im waiting for Amarick's response...

[Azriel]

[quote name='Oik' date='Nov 30 2004, 04:04 AM'] Ecological breastfeeding can and does supress ovulation. So, if a woman and her husband want to share the marital embrace while procreation is impossible infact partking in an act that is tending toward the contraceptive mentality?

[/quote]
Can I answer....

Breastfeeding can SOMETIMES supress ovulation. Procreation while breastfeeding is entirely possible - for some women.

Anywhoo - I can't see why a married couple would be partaking in an act that is tending towards a contraceptive mentality - UNLESS they do not understand that breastfeeding is not truly a form of contraception.

[Oik]

Good point.


[quote]Breastfeeding can SOMETIMES supress ovulation. Procreation while breastfeeding is entirely possible - for some women.[/quote]

Read: [url="http://ccli.org/breastfeed/bresf.shtml"]Ecological Breastfeeding[/url]

This denotes more...only roughly 70 percent of women breast feed and only 25 percent breast feed until the sixth month...

Plainly speaking, women aren't breastfeeding very long so of course ovulation is going to return. Also, if ovulation does return, it is possible that it is temporary and that the mother just needs to make some adjustment(s).

Edited November 30, 2004 by Oik

[amarkich]

To Pio Nono (and others): The thing is, my comments (which are not really an argument) concerning the vulgarity of the Pope's teachings on the marital act were made in reply to something that was not an argument, i.e., I said that the Pope's terminology and teaching was vulgar, replying to the belief that "An orgasm is a foretaste of heaven". I was never provided any reasoning to back this up nor was I given any real basis upon which to trust in such a teaching. Now, Pio Nono, you have proposed that I read his [i]Love and Responsibility [/i](and, presumably , [i]Theology of the Body[/i]). I am not that interested in disproving his claims. I have not even finished the Summa; I do not start my philosophical and theological training with Vatican II and JPII (sorry to disappoint anyone). I never heard an argument in support of the Pope's claims concerning sexuality, so I never posed any real argument against it. As far as your post is concerned, it is very nicely written, and your point is taken, but I do not have time to prepare any argument against John Paul II's claims. My comments were made in reply to other people's comments. No one has really posed an argument so far (this is concerning my comment about "orgasm").

Edit: sorry for not originally giving a context for that post; I put one in at the beginning

Edited December 1, 2004 by amarkich