[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Paragraph 16 of Humanae Vitae.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

I'd like to know how what essentially sounds like exploiting a loophole doesn't offend moral principles. I suppose I'd have to know what the moral principle is, but if its the act of sex is procreation it would strike me that this is skirting the rules on a technicality. That something artificial exists that achieves the same purpose but is condemned says it all. Artificial is a real grey area to start condemning things for.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The pill interferes with the natural function of the reproductive system.

This is what I mean. We have lots of medications that "interfere" with how our bodies function. But for some reason the line gets drawn here (but not viagra).

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'd like to know how what essentially sounds like exploiting a loophole doesn't offend moral principles. I suppose I'd have to know what the moral principle is, but if its the act of sex is procreation it would strike me that this is skirting the rules on a technicality. That something artificial exists that achieves the same purpose but is condemned says it all. Artificial is a real grey area to start condemning things for.

Especially since the "pulling out" method is not permitted either, even though it is completely natural. Humanae Vitae says: "each and every act must be open to the transmission of life." So the Vatican's stance on only "natural" methods is inconsistent regardless.

Every time you come on your wife's boobs, you're committing a sin, says the Vatican. These people are just irrational fear-mongers.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is what I mean. We have lots of medications that "interfere" with how our bodies function. But for some reason the line gets drawn here (but not viagra).

For the most part, we don't take pills to change our bodies from functioning like normal adults.

Viagra for instance, allows the body to function like an normal adult's would, when there are problems which don't allow for normal erectile function.

The argument that a birth control pill interferes with normal body function is valid. The question I see is whether or not it's "moral" or absent a morality view, whether it's healthy to do so even if it may be desired. Apparently, the Catholic church doesn't think it's moral, and there are relevant health issues involved which should be considered as well.

I'm "snipped," so that's where I stand personally on birth control. However, I believe I paid for it all myself.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Viagra for instance, allows the body to function like an normal adult's would, when there are problems which don't allow for normal erectile function.

An elderly man having an erection whenever he wants is not "normal." Reduced sexual potency is a normal part of aging.

By your comparison, getting a face lift is "normal" since young people don't have wrinkles.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

For the most part, we don't take pills to change our bodies from functioning like normal adults.
Viagra for instance, allows the body to function like an normal adult's would, when there are problems which don't allow for normal erectile function.

The church's view is that sex is for procreation. Viagra is not marketed for people who wish to procreate but suffer from erectile dysfunction.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm "snipped," so that's where I stand personally on birth control. However, I believe I paid for it all myself.

I wonder what the Church's view on that is, as well.

[Chongo]

IPK, feel free to call into today's Catholic Answers Live and pose your objections to the host. I look forward to your call as well.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I look forward to your call as well.

Quit being smarmy.

[lpkmckenna]

To demonstrate how little regard the Vatican has for women, consider this: If a woman has a medical condition where being pregnant or giving birth might kill her, she still isn't permitted to use birth control. For the rest of her fertile life, she must live in fear. But if she does become pregnant, she is morally permitted to get an abortion to save her life.

That's right: abortion is sometimes permitted, birth control never is. What laughable stupidity.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

IPK, feel free to call into today's Catholic Answers Live and pose your objections to the host. I look forward to your call as well.

Everyone knows that he won't answer any direct questions. Catholic authorities never do. I grew up in the Catholic Church, any detailed question about doctrine is evaded. The answer to every question becomes "God's will" when you push.

The fact is, you should be more than capable of defending these doctrines yourself if you believe in them. I believe murder, rape, and theft is wrong, and I don't need to call an expert to defend it.

But you're evading these questions, exactly like the guy in the teleconference will evade the questions, because that's Catholic modus operadus.

[The Final Dakar]

I'll give Chongo credit, this is by far the longest I've ever seen him in a thread and he's actually doing back and forth, but with the phone number it seems like he's found his "out" to start evading questions.

[Chongo]

I answered questions to the best of my ability. I refer you CAL because Patrick will be able to address your objections better than I will ever be able to. He does not avoid questions. He has taken on atheists and has let them on for nearly 30 minutes, far longer than than the average caller gets. He has an open invitation to Richard Dawkins to appear on his show and has refused. Perhaps one of you could fill in for Dawkins.

[subego]

I appreciate that (honestly, no snark). However the point isn't to get an official doctrinal ruling, we want your opinion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Perhaps one of you could fill in for Dawkins.

This is what I'm talking about. Just because I have issue with religious doctrine and am willing to ask questions about it, I'm now being compared to a militant atheist. WTH?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I appreciate that (honestly, no snark). However the point isn't to get an official doctrinal ruling, we want your opinion.

I agree with the magisterial teaching of the Church.

BTW. I was looking forward to some awesome tête à tête's with Mr. Coffin

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

He has an open invitation to Richard Dawkins to appear on his show and has refused.

People have been pulling this stunt for time immemorial. Some nobody challenges a famous writer or thinker, and when that famous thinker can't be bothered to deal with that nobody, Mr Nobody pretends Mr Famous is "scared" to debate him. It's childish nonsense.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm now being compared to a militant atheist.

4728/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I agree with the magisterial teaching of the Church.
BTW. I was looking forward to some awesome tête à tête's with Mr. Coffin

This isn't a magisterial question.

Do you think easy and effective contraception is a destructive force? The answer is yes, right? You posted an article claiming that. You pointed to Pope Paul VI's claim of that. You insisted I acknowledge for you the connection between easy and effective birth control and the claims made by Pope Paul IV. You said anyone who denied this is obvious point is being simplistic. This is a simple yes/no question. You shouldn't all of the sudden need to consult with a bishop to confirm your own argument.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

People have been pulling this stunt for time immemorial. Some nobody challenges a famous writer or thinker, and when that famous thinker can't be bothered to deal with that nobody, Mr Nobody pretends Mr Famous is "scared" to debate him. It's childish nonsense.

Actually, He attended one of his conferences and when Q&A time came he politely asked if he would appear on his show.
http://www.patrickcoffin.net/crashing-an-atheists-love-in/

... my main goal was to ask him a yes or no question: would he appear on a top-rated Catholic radio show before an international audience to talk about his atheistic worldview? No debate, no questions about why he refuses to debate his nemesis, Dr. William Lane Craig, no gotcha ambushes.

The crowd went silent and turned from me to Dawkins. After a beat, he began a filibuster about why he would not share the platform with a man who supports genocide (Dawkins has a favorite Bible passage that he thinks proves God is a moral monster — Saul’s commandment to wipe out the Amaleks in 1 Samuel 15), and a longish discourse on the fact that he only debates archbishops and cardinals — including his upcoming Easter Monday debate with George Cardinal Pell. He pointed to the next questioner, but I wanted to make sure his adoring supporters plainly saw that his answer to my public invitation was to refuse the challenge. I went on (I may be misremembering the actual words), “I’m neither a cardinal nor a trained philosopher; just a lowly radio host. And I’m inviting you to have a civil, respectful conversation that gets at the specifics of your atheism. You would have a large audience around the world in which to do so. Yes, or no?”

Mr. Coffin is at the 5:45 mark


[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zuRPCDKCfU&feature=player_embedded/VIDEO]

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

This isn't a magisterial question.
Do you think easy and effective contraception is a destructive force? The answer is yes, right? You posted an article claiming that. You pointed to Pope Paul VI's claim of that. You insisted I acknowledge for you the connection between easy and effective birth control and the claims made by Pope Paul IV. You said anyone who denied this is obvious point is being simplistic. This is a simple yes/no question. You shouldn't all of the sudden need to consult with a bishop to confirm your own argument.

Asked and answered. Let me ask you this: Is pregnancy a disease?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Asked and answered.

So, that's a yes?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Let me ask you this: Is pregnancy a disease?

No. I look forward to seeing where this goes.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Let me ask you this: Is pregnancy a disease?

Originally Posted by subego 

No. I look forward to seeing where this goes.

I asked because the HHS mandate is classifying HBC etc as "preventive services"

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I asked because the HHS mandate is classifying HBC etc as "preventive services"

Surely you realize "preventive" in this case refers to preventing pregnancy? Are you trying to claim that "prevention" is only applicable in the case of "disease"?

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Actually, He attended one of his conferences and when Q&A time came he politely asked if he would appear on his show.
http://www.patrickcoffin.net/crashing-an-atheists-love-in/

Thank you for proving my point exactly. Like Dawkins said, he only deals with serious religious leaders like Archbishops and Cardinals, not some nobody only looking to increase the listenership of his petty little show with an international celebrity guest. And by mentioning Craig, he gave Dawkins the impression that this was a show that espoused Craig's viewpoint, even if he didn't intend to say that.

You have to understand, Chongo: Dawkins has been offered literally hundreds of debate challenges. Hundreds. He simply doesn't have the time for your favourite radio host.

And Mr Coffin then says this:

I wanted to make sure his adoring supporters plainly saw that his answer to my public invitation was to refuse the challenge.

No, it was a dismissal of an annoying gadfly. You swat it away, you don't set up a meeting for it to bother you even more in the future.

But notice Coffin's dishonesty come out: in his question to Dawkins, he said "no debate," but then insists in his blog that Dawkins refused his "challenge." I've never heard a radio interview described as a "challenge" before. Clearly, he was planning a debate.

But notice the absurdity of it all: he goes to a conference to see Dawkins, and during the Q&A, doesn't ask an actual question, he asks for an interview. Isn't it more sensible to get an interview booked thru his publicist? But this was theatre: the only reason he did this was to get publicly turned down so he can preach to his vapid listeners that "mighty Dawkins is afraid of me!"

Dr. Dawkins will be getting a followup email from me, on the very off chance that he actually thought I was suggesting a debate with William Lane Craig. If he still refuses, then atheists everywhere will know that Richard Dawkins is not serious thinker interested in grappling with contrary viewpoints, but a mocker who only comes out to pay when he knows he’s not debating someone his own size, as shown by his eagerness to debate fundamentalist actor Kirk Cameron, confused Catholic pundit Bill O’Reilly, or disgraced evangelical Ted Haggard.

No, atheists everywhere will know that you're not worth being bothered with, Coffin. You're so insignificant, Dawkins would prefer to debate Kirk Cameron. After all, the number of people who would watch a Cameron-Dawkins debate is a lot larger than a debate between Dawkins and some radio host no one's ever heard of.

But as far as I'm aware, Dawkins has never actually debated Kirk Cameron or any other creationist, for the same reason astro-physicists don't have debates with astrologers. He regretfully agreed to meet Cameron on Bill O'Reilly's show, but Cameron failed to show up. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhmsDGanyes

No debate, no questions about why he refuses to debate his nemesis, Dr. William Lane Craig, no gotcha ambushes.

Craig is a dishonest debater, who's only technique is verbal diarrhoea (a long blast of assertions and doctrines, presented without argument or proof, within a debate format that is too short to address one-by-one), which annoys the hell out of the people he debates with. Craig's only "nemesis" is common courtesy for his debate opponent.

And as Dawkins noted, Craig is a creationist and a genocide-apologist, making him unworthy of any public debate.

Mr Coffin seems to be really clueless. For instance, he gives us this little nugget:

Interestingly, before I reached my chair another man handed me a pamphlet with the word Atheism on the front. He grinned at me and I figured it was one more pro-Dawkins agitprop. When I got home, I opened up the trifold. The whole pamphlet was blank! Evidently, Matt, Rick, and I weren’t the only Christians who showed up to hear the maven of militant atheism.

Uh, Mr Coffin, that pamphlet wasn't made by Christians. Atheists love that joke. It was a direct reference to this comic widely seen on the internet:

4730/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

He's also really confused about secularism as a political concept:

Robert and John Kennedy, along with Martin Luther King, JR, were repeatedly held up as models of secularist leadership. That two were Catholics and one an ordained Christian minister didn’t get in the way of the fiery rhetoric.

Yes, they are excellent examples of secularism because they did great things without ramming their religion down people's throats. Those are the kind of Christians that earn atheists' respect.

Inside the foyer stood long tables displaying the books, DVDs and other free thought and secularist paraphernalia. One featured a poster of Hitler counterposed with a poster of Jefferson. The apparent gist was that Jefferson was a good secularist who invented the Dogma of the Separation of Church and State, and Hitler was, well, um (koff koff) the fact that Hitler was a militant atheist himself I’m sure didn’t pose a threat to the pedagogical message that the theocrats are coming, the theocrats are coming.

Hitler's publicly-stated religious opinions changed wildly over time, but he was not an atheist, militant or otherwise. And since you can't grasp it, Jefferson vs Hitler is clearly a Democracy vs Dictatorship or Science vs Ideology comparison.

Seriously Chongo, this guy Coffin is a twit. If he can't even grasp why atheists like MLK and don't like Hitler, he's too stupid to be given any regard whatsoever.

EDIT: oh Jesus, this friggin' twerp refers to Obama as "our dear god king." What a sanctimonious coont.

[Chongo]

Catholic Answers Live doesn't need Dawkins for ratings. I listened to first hour. Did I miss anyones call?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

An elderly man having an erection whenever he wants is not "normal." Reduced sexual potency is a normal part of aging.

As is heart failure.

Again, if you base your comparison on medical attempts to allow people of all ages to have their bodies perform as that of an average adult, the example stands.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The church's view is that sex is for procreation. Viagra is not marketed for people who wish to procreate but suffer from erectile dysfunction.
I wonder what the Church's view on that is, as well.

I'm guessing that regardless of how it's marketed, if it will allow men to achieve erection sufficient for orgasm and procreation, that the Catholic church wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The church's view is that sex is for procreation. Viagra is not marketed for people who wish to procreate but suffer from erectile dysfunction.
I wonder what the Church's view on that is, as well.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm guessing that regardless of how it's marketed, if it will allow men to achieve erection sufficient for orgasm and procreation, that the Catholic church wouldn't have a problem with it.

Not everyone with ED is old. Diabetes can cause ED. There are other causes as well.

[andi*pandi]

Sounds like God's Will to me.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Not everyone with ED is old. Diabetes can cause ED. There are other causes as well.

Wait.

Waaaaait. So you're saying that there are reasons why a person might need Viagra other than old men who still want to get off?

You mean that not all people who use a prescription drug are using it for the exact same purpose and scenario?

...

Except HBC, right? When it comes to HBC, it's just about being slutty and abusing women, right?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Wait.

Waaaaait. So you're saying that there are reasons why a person might need Viagra other than old men who still want to get off?

You mean that not all people who use a prescription drug are using it for the exact same purpose and scenario?

...

Except HBC, right? When it comes to HBC, it's just about being slutty and abusing women, right?

AWESOME!

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

You guys really want to sell me on the idea that viagra is being used by people who need it to make babies? You think this % of people is any higher than the women who legitimately need it to regulate their periods?

[sek929]

That's just the side-effect of not knowing what the hell you're on about, happens all the time with religious folks.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You guys really want to sell me on the idea that viagra is being used by people who need it to make babies?

So only old guys ever have erection problems?

I can't speak from personal experience, but I seriously doubt that.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As is heart failure.
Again, if you base your comparison on medical attempts to allow people of all ages to have their bodies perform as that of an average adult, the example stands.

People die from having a heart failure.

You don't die because you can't have an erection.

I guess people need hair-loss drugs to regain their hair.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

So only old guys ever have erection problems?
I can't speak from personal experience, but I seriously doubt that.

You conveniently left out the second part:

You think this % of [men using viagra to procreate] is any higher than the women who legitimately need [birth control] to regulate their periods?

[The Final Dakar]

We're done here?