Why I Am Not A Christian

[Anguille]

I'm not angry at all, I just don't understand why you're so eager to paint the evil done in the Catholic church with all of christianity. You keep insisting on pairing them with just about every post you make.

I am pointing out that Madeline has valid reasons to reject Christianity based on her experiences.

You are ignoring the many posts I've made that are supportive of Christians and Christianity. Why is that?

She has valid reasons to reject Catholicism. None of the things that she's stated are true for many other christian churches and organizations, some may be true about the Catholic church, but that's about it.

I haven't ignored your posts, I've thanked you on several of them, and I appreciate the respect that you've shown.

So now you believe her? Try to get your story straight.

 

[Anguille]

Well, I think I can present a reason which is one of the reasons I am not a Christian that everyone can agree is a valid reason for not being a Christian of any denomination. del pointed it out and I had to laugh when he did because it's so obvious a reason that it was completely over looked.

I do not believe Christ was divine.

 

[Frank]

Well, I think I can present a reason which is one of the reasons I am not a Christian that everyone can agree is a valid reason for not being a Christian of any denomination. del pointed it out and I had to laugh when he did because it's so obvious a reason that it was completely over looked.

I do not believe Christ was divine.

Fair enough.

 

[Newby]

The Catholic church does not represent all of Christianity, as you say. but you must realize that it represents a large part of it for many people.

No, it does not. Perhaps that some of our frustration with this whole thread in that ALL of Christianity is painted with the broad strokes of the Catholic brush.

Catholics are among the most numerous of the Christian cults. Catholic teachings were also the foundations of many Protestant sects. I don't think it makes sense to deny the influence the Vatican has had on Christianity and how it is perceived. But if I was a non Catholic Christian I think I would get a little exasperated too when people just assumed the Vatican was the final word on what Christianity is.

Don't you think that any Christian faith is a 'cult' though?

Perception is not reality.

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, it does not. Perhaps that some of our frustration with this whole thread in that ALL of Christianity is painted with the broad strokes of the Catholic brush.

Catholics are among the most numerous of the Christian cults. Catholic teachings were also the foundations of many Protestant sects. I don't think it makes sense to deny the influence the Vatican has had on Christianity and how it is perceived. But if I was a non Catholic Christian I think I would get a little exasperated too when people just assumed the Vatican was the final word on what Christianity is.

Don't you think that any Christian faith is a 'cult' though?

Perception is not reality.

I think it would be interesting to discuss what is and what isn't a cult. Almost always a cult is what some other religion is. I thought this was interesting:

"The word "cult" connotes neither good nor evil. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents." Based on this rather simple definition, every church body may be classified as a cult. But there is another definition offered by Webster's , which is more akin to the use of the word employed by theologians and sociologists: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents," and "great devotion to a person, idea, or thing."
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/isitcult.htm

 

[Sky Dancer]

No, I don't agree. You are generalizing that, based on your experience or perhaps your perceptions, that ALL of Christianity falls under the Catholic teachings. They do not. I never felt that how I was taught was "anti-female" at all in any way, shape, or form. As for "anti-sexual", I would not classify my upbringing as "repressed" or "anti-sexual", but simply something that was delegated to the family to convey and not for open discussion.

If something is "not for open discussion" how is that not repression?

Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it. It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

 

[Newby]

If something is "not for open discussion" how is that not repression?

Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it. It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

That's how it was in my family growing up as well, I never recall the church ever addressing anything (good or bad) about sexuality. Not everyone has been unfortunate either. It's a shame if all you had was misguided zealots to teach you about God.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it. It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

That's how it was in my family growing up as well, I never recall the church ever addressing anything (good or bad) about sexuality. Not everyone has been unfortunate either. It's a shame if all you had was misguided zealots to teach you about God.

I look at it as my great fortune. I doubt I would have become a Buddhist if the Catholic Church of my childhood had been all 'sweetness and light'. I feel very happy have taken the path of the buddhadharma.

 

[Frank]

If something is "not for open discussion" how is that not repression?

Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it. It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

Oh, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all. I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Because it's not being repressed, but left up to the parents to discuss it. It wasn't "demonized" nor projected as something "dirty", but a private subject because different children at different ages need it discussed.

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

Oh, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all. I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.

The Catholic Church of my childhood viewed sexuality as being designed only for procreation.

Pope Paul VI issued a declaration in 1975 on many aspects of human sexuality. 2 It is titled: "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." Priests and other officials in the Roman Catholic church are not allowed to offer alternative opinions in public, or even to suggest that change is needed.

Some of the pope's comments in Persona Humana apply to masturbation:

"...masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder..."
"...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."
"Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."
"The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity." 3
http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba10.htm

 

[Frank]

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

Oh, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all. I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.

The Catholic Church of my childhood viewed sexuality as being designed only for procreation.

Pope Paul VI issued a declaration in 1975 on many aspects of human sexuality. 2 It is titled: "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." Priests and other officials in the Roman Catholic church are not allowed to offer alternative opinions in public, or even to suggest that change is needed.

Some of the pope's comments in Persona Humana apply to masturbation:

"...masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder..."
"...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."
"Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."
"The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity." 3
Diversity of belief about masturbation within the Roman Catholic church

Again, I am not Catholic and have never practiced catholicism, so I cannot speak as to what you have posted above.

 

[Madeline]

Well, let's see where we are. I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics. If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one. (Which is actually not the case. I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)

So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in any context? Or would someone please choose a sect we can discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?

BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?

 

[Newby]

Lucky for you that's how sexuality was presented in your family. Not everyone has been so fortunate.

Oh, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all. I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.

The Catholic Church of my childhood viewed sexuality as being designed only for procreation.

Pope Paul VI issued a declaration in 1975 on many aspects of human sexuality. 2 It is titled: "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." Priests and other officials in the Roman Catholic church are not allowed to offer alternative opinions in public, or even to suggest that change is needed.

Some of the pope's comments in Persona Humana apply to masturbation:

"...masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder..."
"...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."
"Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."
"The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity." 3
Diversity of belief about masturbation within the Roman Catholic church

Have there been no new declarations since 1975?

 

[Frank]

Well, let's see where we are. I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics. If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one. (Which is actually not the case. I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)

So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in any context? Or would someone please choose a sect we can discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?

BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?

I have. You've chosen not to respond. Not much I can do.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Oh, don't mistake what I am saying. I'm not saying that my family presented the subject in a healthy manner at all. I'm simply addressing the stance that my church took on the subject.

The Catholic Church of my childhood viewed sexuality as being designed only for procreation.

Pope Paul VI issued a declaration in 1975 on many aspects of human sexuality. 2 It is titled: "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." Priests and other officials in the Roman Catholic church are not allowed to offer alternative opinions in public, or even to suggest that change is needed.

Some of the pope's comments in Persona Humana apply to masturbation:

"...masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder..."
"...masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act...the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."
"Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'impurity,' 'unchasteness' and other vices contrary to chastity and continence."
"The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity." 3
Diversity of belief about masturbation within the Roman Catholic church

Have there been no new declarations since 1975?

I don't know, Newby, I'd have to research it. I was no longer a Catholic by 1975. I went to my first Buddhist retreat in 1982.

 

[Newby]

Well, let's see where we are. I may or may not be a liar, and not all christians are Catholics. If I recall correctly, the offer to discuss any other christian sect was declined on the grounds that I have never joined one. (Which is actually not the case. I have belonged to a Methodist church and to a Lutheran one.....pretty much the same reactions.)

So we cannot discuss prevailing christian attitudes in any context? Or would someone please choose a sect we can discuss, so we can get on with debating whether modern day American mainstream christianity is anti-female and anti-sexual?

BTW, would anyone care to address the faith's silence on Jesus' teaching that wealth is almost always a spiritual death?

I believe several pages back I asked you for examples of anti-female and anti-sexual attitudes and where you come up with your 'point of view', but you ran away.

And how can you speak to the 'faith's silence' when you don't attend the services of any christian church? Where do you come by all of this knowledge that you claim to have about my faith when you don't practice it? My church isn't silent at all about any of Jesus' teachings, so from my point of view you haven't a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.

Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.

"The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae, n. 11)

"The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable."
(Pontifical Council for the Family, Vade Mecum for Confessors concerning Some Aspects of The Morality of Conjugal Life, n. 4)
Sexual Sins within Marriage

 

[Newby]

Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.


Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.


Sexual Sins within Marriage

Of course, the Catholic church wants a lot more little Catholics out there, so their 'policies' are going to reflect that. Again, this is Catholic doctrine, not christian. So this is not an example of christian anti-sexuality as far as I am concerned. I attend service fairly regularly and I can honestly say that I've never heard any teachings having anything to do with sex one way or the other where I go, nor have I seen any policies either.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.


Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.


Sexual Sins within Marriage

Of course, the Catholic church wants a lot more little Catholics out there, so their 'policies' are going to reflect that. Again, this is Catholic doctrine, not christian. So this is not an example of christian anti-sexuality as far as I am concerned. I attend service fairly regularly and I can honestly say that I've never heard any teachings having anything to do with sex one way or the other where I go, nor have I seen any policies either.

Are Catholics Christian or not? Catholics are clearly Christian. They base their teachings on Christ and the Apostles. This is as clear an example of anti-sexuality (save perhaps the Taliban) that I've ever seen.

How many more examples of anti-sexuality do you need?

 

[Newby]

Some Catholic couples mistakenly believe that, within marriage, a husband and wife can make use of any kind of sexual acts with one another. On the contrary, certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically disordered and always gravely immoral. Such acts cannot be justified in any circumstance, for any reason, regardless of intention, even within marriage.


Certain kinds of sexual acts are intrinsically evil and are therefore always immoral, regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose.

Examples of intrinsically disordered sexual acts include: masturbation, homosexual acts, any sexual acts with more than two participants, oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, sexual acts involving objects or devices, etc.

These sexual acts can never be justified regardless of circumstances, intention, or purpose. These sexual acts are unnatural because they violate the natural law. The human person was designed by God so that sexual relations would consist in acts of genital-to-genital intercourse, open to life, between one man and one woman. Other kinds of sexual acts are contrary to this intention and purpose of God, which He designed within human nature.
So, for example, a husband cannot deliberately stimulate the genital organs of his wife in order to give her sexual pleasure, for such an action is defined within the Catechism as a type of sexual act which is "intrinsically and gravely disordered." The masturbation of another person is no less immoral than the masturbation of oneself. And regardless of whether this "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs" is done with the hand or the mouth or an object, it remains essentially the same kind of act, one which is intrinsically and gravely disordered, according to the Catechism.


Sexual Sins within Marriage

Of course, the Catholic church wants a lot more little Catholics out there, so their 'policies' are going to reflect that. Again, this is Catholic doctrine, not christian. So this is not an example of christian anti-sexuality as far as I am concerned. I attend service fairly regularly and I can honestly say that I've never heard any teachings having anything to do with sex one way or the other where I go, nor have I seen any policies either.

Are Catholics Christian or not? This is as clear an example of anti-sexuality (save perhaps the Taliban) that I've ever seen.

How many more examples of anti-sexuality do you need?

Okay, Sky, you win. We're all anti-sexual. Happy now?

This is ridiculous, believe whatever you want to believe, it matters not to me.