4 ms·

Men and women are sexual beings, no doubt; and sex can be about but pleasure, but also so much more. Readers here may be interested in studying a somewhat diff

Men and women are sexual beings, no doubt; and sex can be about but pleasure, but also so much more. Readers here may be interested in studying a somewhat different take on human sexuality, John Paul II's Theology of the Body[1], which "presents an interpretation of the fundamental significance of the body, and in particular of sexual differentiation and complementarity, one which aims to challenge common contemporary philosophical views."[2] [1] http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Body

Numberwang 12y ago
This doesn't really seem relevant to a modern view of the world.
- callmeed 12y ago
  Really? Lectures given a mere 30 years ago are now irrelevant? You make me feel old.
  - VMG 12y ago
    They were irrelevant even 30 years ago. Unfortunately their impact isn't.
    - callmeed 12y ago
      They were from the leader of one of the largest religions of the world–which still represents roughly 17% of the world population. I'd say they are still relevant and part of what Numberwang refers to as a "modern view of the world". BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the content of those lectures. Only that dismissing them because you think the modern world doesn't hold those views is silly. And, yes, I'm aware that more recent pontiffs have expressed different views.
      - VMG 12y ago
        I'm aware that some people think they're relevant (and that fact is relevant), I'm just pointing out that the teachings themselves are not.
        lotharbot 12y ago
        You seem to be confusing "relevant" with "correct". The teachings are most definitely relevant, if for no other reason than that perhaps a billion people worldwide consider the teacher to be directly important to them.
      - andrzejsz 12y ago
        just to know what are this different views by more recent pontiffs.
        callmeed 12y ago
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670673/Vatican-Many-Catholics-ignore-teachings-sex.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670673/Vatican-Many...
  - kd0amg 12y ago
    Being outdated is about content, not publication date.
VMG 12y ago
> The ability of the human body to express truth through the sexual union of married couples is acclaimed. The moral wrongness of using artificial means to manipulate such a significant aspect of the created body is explained. Please take a moment to reflect how much damage this type of thinking has done in the world. This book isn't just useless and misguided, it's positively evil.
- belovedeagle 12y ago
  Without having read the book or arguing for one side or the other, I have to point out that you aren't attempting to meet with the argument or even attack the premises. Instead, you're looking at the conclusion and declaring that, in effect, it is immoral to even argue for that position. This is dogmatism; this is wrong; this is antithetical to sound and rational behavior (to be clear, "this" is your argument, not his!). In short, you /might/ even say that what you've just done is... evil.
- andrzejsz 12y ago
  Just out of curiosity what damage ?
  - VMG 12y ago
    Death. > It follows that many of those who died from AIDS would still be alive today had the Catholic Church abandoned its condom ban in the 1980s, as it became clear that condoms were (and still are) the most effective practical measure to prevent the spread of the disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS Also forbidding sane family planning and the prevention of unwanted offspring, where lack of necessary resources causes even more disease and more death.
    - Qzmp 12y ago
      People undeterred by the catholic church's prohibition on sex outside marriage are unlikely to be reluctant to wear condoms because of doctrinal concerns, I'd have thought.
disputin 12y ago
I haven't read any of that, but isn't the pope commenting on sexuality a bit like a bedouin commenting on marine biology?
- andrzejsz 12y ago
  believe it or not but you do not to have direct experience to be able to produce judgment. In fact researcher should have distance from the subject he/she is investigating.

Numberwang 12y ago

This doesn't really seem relevant to a modern view of the world.

callmeed 12y ago
Really? Lectures given a mere 30 years ago are now irrelevant? You make me feel old.
- VMG 12y ago
  They were irrelevant even 30 years ago. Unfortunately their impact isn't.
  - callmeed 12y ago
    They were from the leader of one of the largest religions of the world–which still represents roughly 17% of the world population. I'd say they are still relevant and part of what Numberwang refers to as a "modern view of the world". BTW, I'm not saying I agree with the content of those lectures. Only that dismissing them because you think the modern world doesn't hold those views is silly. And, yes, I'm aware that more recent pontiffs have expressed different views.
    - VMG 12y ago
      I'm aware that some people think they're relevant (and that fact is relevant), I'm just pointing out that the teachings themselves are not.
      - lotharbot 12y ago
        You seem to be confusing "relevant" with "correct". The teachings are most definitely relevant, if for no other reason than that perhaps a billion people worldwide consider the teacher to be directly important to them.
    - andrzejsz 12y ago
      just to know what are this different views by more recent pontiffs.
      - callmeed 12y ago
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670673/Vatican-Many-Catholics-ignore-teachings-sex.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2670673/Vatican-Many...
- kd0amg 12y ago
  Being outdated is about content, not publication date.

VMG 12y ago

> The ability of the human body to express truth through the sexual union of married couples is acclaimed. The moral wrongness of using artificial means to manipulate such a significant aspect of the created body is explained. Please take a moment to reflect how much damage this type of thinking has done in the world. This book isn't just useless and misguided, it's positively evil.

belovedeagle 12y ago
Without having read the book or arguing for one side or the other, I have to point out that you aren't attempting to meet with the argument or even attack the premises. Instead, you're looking at the conclusion and declaring that, in effect, it is immoral to even argue for that position. This is dogmatism; this is wrong; this is antithetical to sound and rational behavior (to be clear, "this" is your argument, not his!). In short, you /might/ even say that what you've just done is... evil.
andrzejsz 12y ago
Just out of curiosity what damage ?
- VMG 12y ago
  Death. > It follows that many of those who died from AIDS would still be alive today had the Catholic Church abandoned its condom ban in the 1980s, as it became clear that condoms were (and still are) the most effective practical measure to prevent the spread of the disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS Also forbidding sane family planning and the prevention of unwanted offspring, where lack of necessary resources causes even more disease and more death.
  - Qzmp 12y ago
    People undeterred by the catholic church's prohibition on sex outside marriage are unlikely to be reluctant to wear condoms because of doctrinal concerns, I'd have thought.

disputin 12y ago

I haven't read any of that, but isn't the pope commenting on sexuality a bit like a bedouin commenting on marine biology?

andrzejsz 12y ago
believe it or not but you do not to have direct experience to be able to produce judgment. In fact researcher should have distance from the subject he/she is investigating.