God and Gay Marriage

Quote: reno

Bob, these rules were rational and reasonable at other points in human history before we had reliable birth control and medical treatments for STDs.

The purpose for such rules was not to prevent disease or rein in fertility. They're not based on anything but millennia-old prejudices and social norms.

Quote: Dalex64

What is the practical reason from the chruch for abstinance? To prevent 6mm std deaths?

To avoid deaths from stds for sure and to stop the millions who die every year from abortion. However, it is also to protect hearts from being broken and emotional scars. It is to stop people from being looked at as objects and used for another's enjoyment. It is to ensure a child will be raised surrounded by a committed love of a mom and dad. It is to show that we are not animals and slaves to our passions and emotions but can rise above them using our intellect and will. Etc...

Quote:

So yes, the church's positions on abstinance and contraception should change, to fit with the times. Clinging to traditions that fewer people are willing to believe in and follow is one of the reasons for the decline in interest in the church.

Clinging to true teachings that will help society is one of the reasons that many people once they discover the truth of the Church's teaching become very interested. Why is it not the world and our culture that should change? Clinging to things that cause great hardship and problems because it is popular or supported by the entertainment industry is one of the reasons for the decline in society.

That's the point - the world and the culture does change, and the church does not.

We have already discussed ad nauseum all of the traditions in the old testament that are no longer followed.

50 years ago was the civil rights movement. 100 years ago women couldn't vote. 150 years ago blacks were slaves. 200 years ago power was concentrated in the hands of very few, white men.

Well, at least the last one hasn't changed.

The church and the us political parties are having the same problem right now, they are losing touch with more and more of the population.

Quote: Dalex64

That's the point - the world and the culture does change, and the church does not.

50 years ago was the civil rights movement. 100 years ago women couldn't vote. 150 years ago blacks were slaves. 200 years ago power was concentrated in the hands of very few, white men.

Well, at least the last one hasn't changed.

Ha, good one that last point. Anyway you demonstrate my point perfectly. In all of these developments and change in culture we grow closer to the Gospel and not farther away. Granted often the Scriptures are cherry picked and misinterpreted but it is abundantly clear that Scriptures, especially the New Testament has always supported shared wealth and power, equal treatment regardless of race or gender, and that human dignity and rights are equal for all. As culture changes for the better it comes to be more in line with the Bible and the Church's teachings.

This should give us pause when we so clearly go against the teachings of the Bible on certain things like pro-life issues, marriage, and the family. In every instance we have been blessed by changing ourselves to be more in line with a more mature understand of Christ's teaching. What will happen when we so clearly reject that teaching and go against it?

Quote:

The church and the us political parties are having the same problem right now, they are losing touch with more and more of the population.

Again I hate to just say the opposite, but is it not the population who is losing touch with the Church? Truth has never been a popularity contest and it is not determined by voting.

Quote: FrGamble

You know what is absolutely ridiculous is you saying this and pretending it is fact, when it is wrong. I feel embarrassed for having to educate you.

The prostate makes the fluid that helps ejaculate
sperm. It's not the sperm that anybody is
concerned about, it's the seminal fluid
produced by the prostate that's the issue.
More ejaculations means far less chance
of prostate cancer. But why should priests
care, 'god' will surely protect you. lol

"The prostate gland is a male reproductive organ whose main function is to secrete prostate fluid, one of the components of semen. The muscles of the prostate gland also help propel this seminal fluid into the urethra during ejaculation."

http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/does-frequent-ejaculation-help-ward-off-prostate-cancer

"Men who ejaculated most often actually had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer, and this relationship grew stronger as men grew older."

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate

"During this year’s annual meeting of the American Urological Association in New Orleans, researchers affirmed what may be the first modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer: ejaculation."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/frequent-ejaculation-may-reduce-prostate-cancer-risk-how-orgasm-protects-against-334018

"Men who ejaculate almost every day have a lower risk of developing prostate cancer, experts have found."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-who-ejaculate-often-are-less-likely-to-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds-10264445.html

"Evidence, including from within the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, suggests high ejaculation frequency may be protective against future development of prostate cancer."

https://www.auanet.org/university/abstract_detail.cfm?id=PD6-07&meetingID=15NOLA

"Each increase of three ejaculations per week was associated with a 15% decrease in prostate cancer risk."

http://www.askmen.com/sports/health_400/410_4-fun-ways-to-prevent-prostate-cancer.html

"High ejaculation frequency possibly may be associated with a lower risk of total and organ-confined prostate cancer."

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=198487

"Frequent sex decreases the risk of prostate cancer by as much as 33%. "

http://pathmed.com/2011/08/sex-saves-your-prostate/

"Men who ejaculated most often actually had a 33 percent lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer, and this relationship just grew stronger as men grew older!"

"Men who ejaculated upwards of 21 times a month had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer than the baseline group."

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/prostatehealth/a/ejaculate_ptate.htm

"They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

"Reduced ejaculatory output seems to be a risk factor for poor prostate health and prostate cancer."

http://www.frequenturinationinmenexplained.com/ejaculation-and-prostate-cancer/

That is what the church has always believed? Then why didn't they practice what they preach?

We already know the church didn't speak out against slavery for their first at least 1200 years, maybe it was 1500, and women still don't have any meaningful leadership positions.

I didn't see them leading the charge on these issues. If society didn't change around them, the church would still support slavery (or whatever words you have used before to describe beloved property) and women wouldn't have any say at all in the family unit or in society - they too would still be treated as beloved, unintelligent, and uneducatable property.

If society is indeed shifting towards the teaching that is in the gospels, then at the risk of sounding like evenbob, the church has perpetrated nearly 2000 years of oppression.

The church really needs to learn to pick its battles in order to survive. If they can't stay relevant, can't appeal to the masses, and can't convince people to obey like they used to just because they say so, then the church will fizzle out and die. They are no longer in a position to lead, form, and shape society into their own image.

Again hoping I'm not sounding too hateful, but people have become more educated and are thinking for themselves and making their own decisions now.

They don't need the church to tell them what to do, and resent the church telling them what to do. These last few thoughts apply to many more than just the Catholics.

Quote: Dalex64

That is what the church has always believed? Then why didn't they practice what they preach?

This is a good question and one that involves the reality of sin and our fallen human nature. It also shows that our understanding of the inspired text of scripture grows and deepens over time.

Quote:

We already know the church didn't speak out against slavery for their first at least 1200 years, maybe it was 1500, and women still don't have any meaningful leadership positions.

This is is not true on both accounts. The Scriptures themselves speak out often against slavery, most especially the kind of slavery based on race that we understand today. Saints from before the year 1000 spoke for the freedom of slaves and often fought for their freedom. Saints were made and entire religious orders established where they sold themselves into slavery to set another free or paid ransoms. St. Thomas Aquinas saw racial slavery as a grave sin and the Popes spoke against it as well in the beginning of the 15th century and throughout the transatlantic slave trade. article

In regards to women, religious communities of women were the first in the modern world to educate and empower women to run their own convents and schools, which they extended to other women. Still Mary is considered the greatest human being ever to live and the greatest of all saints as well as many other women saints from Scripture and throughout the centuries who were strong willed, independent women at times even ordering Popes around and telling them to get back to Rome.

Quote:

I didn't see them leading the charge on these issues.

You need to look closer, Christianity was at the forefront of leading the charge of all these issues.

Quote:

If society didn't change around them, the church would still support slavery (or whatever words you have used before to describe beloved property) and women wouldn't have any say at all in the family unit or in society - they too would still be treated as beloved, unintelligent, and uneducatable property.

That sounds like an Evenbob quote. It is unjustifiable, prejudiced, mean, and incorrect.

Quote:

The church really needs to learn to pick its battles in order to survive. If they can't stay relevant, can't appeal to the masses, and can't convince people to obey like they used to just because they say so, then the church will fizzle out and die. They are no longer in a position to lead, form, and shape society into their own image.

Don't worry about the Church she will survive, however you are correct that if we can't stay relevant and appeal to the masses and convince them of the truth of the Gospels it is not the Church that will fizzle out and die, but life as we know it. Maybe it is a good thing that we are not in a position to lead, neither was Christ and He transformed the world. In humble loving service and in getting the truth out there again from a position of servant perhaps the message will again transform our world for the better and make us not into the Church's image, but rather into God's.

Quote:

Again hoping I'm not sounding too hateful, but people have become more educated and are thinking for themselves and making their own decisions now.

And I hope I'm not sounding too smug, but the more people become truly educated and open their minds to think for themselves and make their own decisions the more hope and confidence I have that they will see the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Quote:

They don't need the church to tell them what to do, and resent the church telling them what to do. These last few thoughts apply to many more than just the Catholics.

Only as a child do we resent when our parents tell us to do something. When we mature and think about it, we realize they loved us and knew better. What's the old joke: After I graduated from college I realized how quickly my parents went from knowing nothing in High School to having great wisdom after college.

Bob this is a surreal conversation we are having about how many times men should ejaculate. Only on the forum, God bless us. The interesting thing is that this latest study you quote from over, and over, and over again made big news because before then it was actually considered bad for your prostrate to ejaculate often. So before 2003 the Church was trying to help you out. Now the news says there may be a correlation between frequent ejaculation and a lower risk of prostrate cancer. All the articles say that we shouldn't go out and change our sexual practices just yet. I guess what I was reacting to is you saying it was unhealthy not to ejaculate. You made it sound like it was unhealthy, which it is not. I hope you see the truth now and can stop worrying about me.

Quote: FrGamble

Now the news says there may be a correlation between frequent ejaculation and a lower risk of prostrate cancer. .

There are also studies that say tobacco may
cause cancer. The smart people keep on
smoking and wait for proof.

Quote: FrGamble

You know what is absolutely ridiculous is you saying this and pretending it is fact, when it is wrong. I feel embarrassed for having to educate you .

I accept your apology for this uncalled
for condescending remark and imagine
you're quite embarrassed because this
whole thing actually educated you, not
me.

Quote: FrGamble

I guess what I was reacting to is you saying it was unhealthy not to ejaculate. You made it sound like it was unhealthy, which it is not.

"Many studies have shown that engaging in regular sexual activity can increase longevity and promote weight loss, in addition to improving overall fitness, immunity, prostate function, heart health, blood pressure, mood, pain sensitivity, and sleep quality. Recent studies have even suggested that sex can fight headaches."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/popes-celibacy-rule-how-abstinence-affects-priests-psychological-health-244715

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

Quote: Evenbob

The prostate makes the fluid that helps ejaculate
sperm. It's not the sperm that anybody is
concerned about, it's the seminal fluid
produced by the prostate that's the issue.
More ejaculations means far less chance
of prostate cancer. But why should priests
care, 'god' will surely protect you. lol

"The prostate gland is a male reproductive organ whose main function is to secrete prostate fluid, one of the components of semen. The muscles of the prostate gland also help propel this seminal fluid into the urethra during ejaculation."

http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/does-frequent-ejaculation-help-ward-off-prostate-cancer

"Men who ejaculated most often actually had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer, and this relationship grew stronger as men grew older."

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate

"During this year’s annual meeting of the American Urological Association in New Orleans, researchers affirmed what may be the first modifiable risk factor for prostate cancer: ejaculation."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/frequent-ejaculation-may-reduce-prostate-cancer-risk-how-orgasm-protects-against-334018

"Men who ejaculate almost every day have a lower risk of developing prostate cancer, experts have found."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/men-who-ejaculate-often-are-less-likely-to-develop-prostate-cancer-study-finds-10264445.html

"Evidence, including from within the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, suggests high ejaculation frequency may be protective against future development of prostate cancer."

https://www.auanet.org/university/abstract_detail.cfm?id=PD6-07&meetingID=15NOLA

"Each increase of three ejaculations per week was associated with a 15% decrease in prostate cancer risk."

http://www.askmen.com/sports/health_400/410_4-fun-ways-to-prevent-prostate-cancer.html

"High ejaculation frequency possibly may be associated with a lower risk of total and organ-confined prostate cancer."

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=198487

"Frequent sex decreases the risk of prostate cancer by as much as 33%. "

http://pathmed.com/2011/08/sex-saves-your-prostate/

"Men who ejaculated most often actually had a 33 percent lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer, and this relationship just grew stronger as men grew older!"

"Men who ejaculated upwards of 21 times a month had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer than the baseline group."

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/prostatehealth/a/ejaculate_ptate.htm

"They found those who had ejaculated the most between the ages of 20 and 50 were the least likely to develop the cancer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

"Reduced ejaculatory output seems to be a risk factor for poor prostate health and prostate cancer."

http://www.frequenturinationinmenexplained.com/ejaculation-and-prostate-cancer/

These are important links you have posted here Bob. They should be posted at least once per year in the AARP magazine and taught in boys health classes in schools. Until it happened to me [ a non bacterial prostate infection] I thought it was just a plea put forth by young guys trying to win favor from young women.

Seems it is an absolute reality. Mens body's through eons of time have evolved to produce ejaculate fluid and harm can come to us from not expelling it. That is what is told to me by the urology dept. of the Mayo clinic this year. I have a friend who was amazed to find the same thing happened to him, just by not masturbating he had caused himself an awful urethra infection with inflammation which is spread into the epiditimus [swollen testicles] and quite painful to by the way.

By the time my testicle has swollen to a size larger than a golf ball, the hospital said to get in right away as it could burst and kill me within twelve hours. Don't find out the "hard" way.

Valuable info here Bob, thanks.