New Pope

[nslay]

The women in Africa are meant to get NO pleasure from sex, only the males. So they would castrate them, it's horrible. I feel so bad for those people.

Neither should, though. 

Hazard -- I've never heard it defined in another way, before.  I believe the word in question is "fornication", which is "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other".  Is the bible actually against that? I don't really know.  I'm kind wondering if people actually know where it's said, or if they just assume it's in there because they're told it is. 

nslay -- Female circumcision is a little different.  To use dictionary.com again, "clitoridectomy especially as a cultural rite sometimes with removal of the labia that is now outlawed in some nations including the U.S. —abbreviation FGM called also female circumcision."  It basically takes the sexual pleasure out of sex, which seems like something logical to do if sex is for nothing more than procreation.

Regarding Fornication
dictionary.com defines it as sexual intercourse
furthermore
dictionary.com defines adultery as the voluntary intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the spouse
You can see that among the 10 commandments, adultery is mentioned
You can find this in the bible in Exodus 20:14

As a followup
The Catholic Church defines Adultery:
2380 of the Catechism
Adultery refers to marital infedility.  When two partners of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.  Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.  The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.  The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

Ok, I don't CARE about adultery!  I know it's in the 10 commandments, so it was, in a sense, given by God.  I want somebody to tell me where in the Bible Fornication (which is pre-marital sex!) is condemned. 

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fornication -- Sex between unmarried people (pre-marital sex)
http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=adultery -- Sex between somebody who's married and somebody who isn't his wife (NOT the issue here)

So, the Catechism (2353) defines fornication as:
Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.  It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.  Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her?  There is a risk involved with fornication also.  Its quite a common scene that when a man impregnates his girlfriend, that he runs away and avoids her.  In a marriage, it is slightly more difficult to run away from problems.  Besides, a marriage assures you and your partners devotion and commitment to each other.

So, the bible never specifically uses the word fornication (at least in english, check the greek and hebrew versions for more information).  However, it does use some examples in which the definition presented above apply.

Deut 22:20-21,23

Of course, I am aware that the bible is usually sexist.  It was written by people of a different era in history (I know people tell you that it is infallible, that is was written by God etc...  1) The bible is not infallible 2) Even the prophets who were the hand of God were imperfect and fallible  => The authors of the bible were imperfect and fallible => the bible is fallible ... This is just a byproduct of freedom of choice, if it were to be perfect, God would have to write it himself or puppet us to write it ... The point of the church is to clear these controversies (ie. sexism), continue to add to the moral laws as we advance in technology and history, and teach its people  consistently ... I am most impressed by the Catholics because they are very analytical when reading the bible and history, they will not conclude a meaning of a passage in the bible without some evidence. ).

Historically, as the Israelites were moving into the "promised land."  They had to rid themselves of the Canaanites because of their beliefs.  In short, the Canaanites believed in fertility, they had a number of gods: Baal, Mot and so forth who all represented the seasons.  Baal is god of fertility and Mot god of death (and there are others).  In short, every winter Mot had killed Baal as they follow a cyclical storyline and every spring Baal was brought back to life by his sister/wife.  Because they valued fertility so much, they even had temples and women who hung out at the temple who were called temple prostitutes (this is where the concept prostitution came from).  Every spring, the priest would have intercourse with the temple prostitutes as a symbol of fertility.
Because of these beliefs (and mostly the prostitution part), the Israelites attempted to kill them off.  So, as you can see not only from the bible, but historically they valued virginity before marriage.

[Arta]

On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her? 

That's archaic, simplistic and silly. If two people want to have sex for fun, and that's all either of them want, why shouldn't they? You seem to be assuming that men use women for sex. Sometimes they do, and sometimes, women use men for sex! Yes. Welcome to the 21st century. It's not all about men anymore. What's wrong with pleasure anyway? If no one gets hurt, what's the harm? Even more important than all that: why the hell are other people's sex lives any of your, or the Church's, business?

The church has some pretty stupid positions on all this stuff, if you ask me. Given a choice between using condoms or having an AIDS epidemic, what kind of spiteful god would choose the latter?

[Invert]

In my psychoanalytic conclusion Hazard was molested by priests when he was younger.
He thinks if he believes in something that it must be true! (Wow what a dumb ass).

He is not a Catholic but he still gives them a bad name with his ludicrous posts. If there are Catholics reading this thread you should tell Hazard to shut the fuck up.

[nslay]

On a small note, fornication can be seen as dishonorable since usually it is soley meant for pleasure using oneself and the other's body to fulfill this pleasure.  If you really loved this woman, then why not marry her? 

That's archaic, simplistic and silly. If two people want to have sex for fun, and that's all either of them want, why shouldn't they? You seem to be assuming that men use women for sex. Sometimes they do, and sometimes, women use men for sex! Yes. Welcome to the 21st century. It's not all about men anymore. What's wrong with pleasure anyway? If no one gets hurt, what's the harm? Even more important than all that: why the hell are other people's sex lives any of your, or the Church's, business?

The church has some pretty stupid positions on all this stuff, if you ask me. Given a choice between using condoms or having an AIDS epidemic, what kind of spiteful god would choose the latter?

So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 
If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.

No one's life is the church's business, and it is your choice if you follow the church's teachings or not.

God chose the latter?  I thought people chose to have sex.

[Hazard]

In my psychoanalytic conclusion Hazard was molested by priests when he was younger.
He thinks if he believes in something that it must be true! (Wow what a dumb ass).

He is not a Catholic but he still gives them a bad name with his ludicrous posts. If there are Catholics reading this thread you should tell Hazard to shut the fuck up.

Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.

[Mephisto]

[Newby]

Lmao.

[Arta]

So you conclude that two people using each other for pleasure is fine?  Oh by all means it happens every day...but that doesn't make it right.
It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.
What's wrong with pleasure? Nothing, but this isn't exactly playing a simple game of catch.  There is something wrong with pleasure when it is at the expense of another.  Some people enjoy murder, but that is at the expense of another's life and this clearly is wrong.  In that case, it is wrong for one person to use another for sex and vice versa. 

This is all such nonsense that I can't be bothered to respond to it. None of that has anything to do with this conversation.

If two people want to have sex for fun mutually, well as I said above, its purpose isn't soley for fun obviously.

Howso? People have sex for fun all the time. What do you think a one night stand is? Having no-strings sex is something plenty of people do mutually, and just for fun. It doesn't have to be love just because one person isn't using the other.

[Invert]

Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.

Are you a total ignorant fool? How can you say that when YOU are the one that thinks that if you believe is something that it MUST be true?

[Hazard]

Invert has a problem with religion and it blinds him. He blindly hates something he doesn't understand, and its very unfortunate.

Are you a total ignorant fool? How can you say that when YOU are the one that thinks that if you believe is something that it MUST be true?

Faith. I have faith in God, I have faith that in this case I'm wrong and you're right. How can you say that YOU are right?

[Adron]

It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.

[quasi-modo]

It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.

What about the other animals that also have sex for fun? Dolphins and I think dogs and apes do too.

[shout]

I think Invert and Hazard should get married. Or at least stop being douches and argueing over the internet.

[Archangel]

It is meant soley for fun?  Oh, I am sure its fun, but just because its fun you can't conclude it is only for fun.  In fact, everyone understands the action's original purpose is for procreation.

Actually, one of the things that separate man from beast is that man has sex for fun. If you only have sex for procreation, you're the beast.

What about the other animals that also have sex for fun? Dolphins and I think dogs and apes do too.

Actually you can add humans to that list.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Regarding women and the Church: if they don't want to be part of the Church, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. The Church is not a government. If the Catholic Church doesn't want women to be part of the clergy, who cares? No one (at least in any civilized country) is forcing people to be in the Catholic Church (the Church itself only 'strongly suggests' it ) If you disagree with it, then deal with it, and don't be part of the Catholic Church. You can go off and form your own denomination of Christianity, just like the myriad of other people who, throughout history, have disagreed with the Catholic Church. History has shown that this works fine, and you can go off and do that.

Obviously everyone here is having a difficult time understanding this concept, but the Catholic Church is defined by its beliefs. Again, if I may reiterate, if you don't agree with these beliefs, then don't be a part of the Catholic Church. The Church itself is governed by its interpretation of the world of God; it's defined by its beliefs. By significantly altering these beliefs, the Catholic Church is no longer the Catholic Church.

Arta, Adron, iago, and the rest of the left: you can bash your opposition for using "stupid" arguments, but when your side suggested that the Catholic Church _supported_ the molestation of altar boys, you just lost all credibility with me.

Guess what, I'm a non-practicing Protestant. I believe in God, but I don't make a big deal about it, nor do I go to church every sunday. Why am I defending the Catholic Church? I think that leftist assholes like the ones demonstrated on these forums have these huge, inflated egos and take cheap shots at a generally legitimate and decent organization just to further their own ideology.

I can't say that both sides of all of these arguments use logic 100% of the time. The difference is, the anti-Catholic camp is condescendingly claiming that they are the infallible, logical ones, while their opposition is merely claiming they are infallible. The anti-Catholic camp claims that the Catholics are hypocrites, yet they are prime examples of hypocrisy.