Catholic Church opposes moves to reduce poverty. (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

See that's the difference - you think that it's an urge which no force can control, so you run a defeatist mitigation excercise

But we can do better and we must do better and we will do betterthankyouandGodblessandgodblessthe unitedstatesofamerica

Why is a desire and a need for random relations a bad thing? Why does it need betterment?
Biologically, it's possibly the best thing we can do for humanity.
Emotionally it appears to be pretty healthy too, otherwise people wouldn't keep doing it.

 

[banco55]

The fact that Filipinos are incapable of building a modern, competitive economy has a lot more to do with the high poverty rate then high birth rates. They don't export anything worth a damn.

 

[moll.]

And how do you think the high poverty rate is sutained? Magic or more people being born into poverty?

 

[Empyrean444]

Dumb thread. The Catholic Church has done more to fight poverty than any other fat-ass organisation ever. It's moronic to blame the church for poverty brought about from imprudent sexual congress. If they really listened to the Church and her teachings, they wouldnt have an uncontrollable desire and need for random relations

So "married couples" are in a random relationship?

It is stupid to say that the Church's prescription of abstinence is some truly infallible method of non contraceptive birth control. The high rate of teen pregnancy in the US South, for instance: we can't, if we wish to follow reason, attribute this as being caused by the fact that they just "didn't listen" to enough Christian anti-sex dogma (though they are not Catholic, the teachings and propaganda are practically the same in both cause and effect). The simple fact is that the general ultra-ascetic religious suggestion of "resisting temptation" is a failure, because temptation is far stronger than the minds powers of control. If the method of constant resistance was truly viable, then no priests and brothers (both who must be immersed in such propaganda) who be offending paedophiles. Why? because their doctrinal resistance, by its own logic, ought to triumph. It is a nice speciously reasoned theory to suggest that such asceticism is a true solution, and in some cases, it works; but for the majority of people it simply doesn't cut it, either from a "strength of their resistance" stance or from a logical sense. People are individuals, and what works for some fails for others, meaning that we cannot assume that this asceticism even has the potential to be a universal solution just because (as stated above) it works "for some". Societal progress will not be made by looking backward at the entire teachings of an anachronistic and vindictive tome; it is made by breaking the enthralling chains with which these beliefs pin us to to depths of stagnation and failure.

 

[Iron]

This was dealt with.

Temptation to sin can be defeated by those who keep the faith - the true believers. Bad eggs in society or even the Church, regrettable though they are, do not belmish the doctrine. Rather they mearly illustrate that the path to righteousness is not meant to be an easy one.

 

[Iron]

Why is a desire and a need for random relations a bad thing? Why does it need betterment?
Biologically, it's possibly the best thing we can do for humanity.
Emotionally it appears to be pretty healthy too, otherwise people wouldn't keep doing it.

Rubbish. The family is the foundation of society. For this to work, a man and woman must make solemn vows of fidelity to eachother. Without this basis, our children are brought up without security and are subsequently unsuccessful adults

Your claim that infidelity is biologically healthy and (apparently) 'humane' is bizarre and unsubstantiated. Likewise, it's stupid to claim that giving effect to any desire is valid because it's emotionally healthy