|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Trisagion and the Catholic Bishops - accessories to murder
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is regrettable that you feel neither the need to read carefully what I write (for I made the necessary distinctions) nor to look up what the RCC actually claims. In short, there are many "levels of truth" in the RCC. The highest one, where the Church teaches definitively on faith and morals, is protected by God Himself against error. Below these infallible truths, there are some where the Church has spoken clearly and insistently. There a good Catholic should typically obey even thought it is possible that the Church errs, simply out of respect for her authority. And then there's a lot of less certain stuff, where one typically can pick among several suggested alternatives or simply ignore the teaching. The teaching against contraception may not be quite infallible, but it sure is certain enough to demand obedience.
I am actually aware of the concept of different levels of truth. I just personally think that the highest of those levels is conceptually flawed. Because it is still the church that is doing the categorising, and so a mistake as to whether a teaching has been protected by God in the way claimed is still a mistake.
As I said, I have no problem with the notion that Catholics should obey Catholic teaching on the basis of authority. It's just that creating a category higher than that seems designed to try and draw non-Catholics into obedience as well, by invoking God's authority to cloak the church's.
[ 22. February 2012, 01:11: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is the quite specific Romans 12 guideline "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone" which seems to be well followed by what she describes as a "social compact". I think it is more than just a social compact. It looks to me to be following Christian understandings on faith and morals. How do the Catholic contributors see that?
Interesting interpretation. I think though that in the context of Romans 12 this is much more aimed at the individual, and is more about living humbly than about instituting a preferred social order. If it is not possible, because of God, to keep the peace, then one must disturb it. Neither the prophets nor Christ lived a life of appeasement.
Not an interesting interpretation, just a sound one. Read Romans 12:1.
quote:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
See also v 4,5, 10. You have failed to read for context. Romans 12 is addressed to a whole church. Indeed, since the letter is generally reckoned to have been used as an encyclical, it was addressed to many churches.
So far as appeasement goes, repaying evil with good is not appeasement. It is profoundly powerful Christian witness. So far as the prophets and Jesus are concerned, the most prominent targets of challenge were religious leaders and kings who missed the mark. Confronting the powerful.
You don't really see Josephine's co-operative work arrangements as appeasement do you? That was just a little bit of rhetoric, I should think.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Anyway, I note that Josephine has started a Purg thread on this topic, so I'll relocate there.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
"How?" Are you asking me how I think Catholic theology might determine where the extra person comes from when a fertilized egg ("individual human being") ends up producing two persons? I'm sure I wouldn't know, but it doesn't seem much more esoteric than a lot of other things the Church has very firm opinions of.
You likely think of theology as a near arbitrary selection of proposition.
"Near arbitrary"? I don't believe that's a fair conclusion from anything I've said.
quote:
Theology instead is a highly connected logical web anchored in a largely fixed set of fundamental beliefs (the "deposit of faith") and to some extent the usual knowledge of the world. One hence can recognize that something probably is outside of the reach of this theological web, simply because the argumentative "links" to get there appear non-existent.
Really? All that speculation on Limbo, but nothing at all on how a single fertilization (an individual human being according to you) results in two people? quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
As to why - well, it is rather an obvious question to ask, isn't it? You've often likened theologians to scientists - but maybe not so much in the curiosity department, I guess.
My point was that this is not a pressing moral issue, not that this is not interesting as such.
And my point was that a theory of individual human nature purporting to be a sure guide to addressing pressing moral issues might be expected to answer a few obvious follow-up questions.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As mentioned, twining does not represent a significant challenge at all.
So you claim. But do not establish.
quote:
The claim is that the fertilized egg must be considered morally as a human being, not that the only way in which a new human being can come to be is the fertilization of an egg.
Other than our Lord's miraculous Incarnation, what other ways are there?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And I believe that the above is as strong an example of the sin of pride as I've ever seen.
I can't see how that works, since it really is intended as a simple factual statement. It rather could be case of grand delusion. If I proclaim loudly that I am the best tennis player in the world, then I am deluded not proud. Well, I may have pride in my delusion, but that's a secondary consideration. If Djokovic would not shut up about how great his tennis is, then that would be more an example of pride.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And under the assumption of "natural moral law", I am arguing that sex is ordered to the social and pleasurable functions to the active detriment of procreation in a way seen in very few other species.
And since you are undeniably wrong on purely biological grounds, your argument is stone cold dead. In case you haven't noticed, humanity represents arguably the most successfully breeding mammal (and indeed higher animal other than insects) on the planet to the point where most people are worried about humans overpopulating the world, rather than facing extinction. Perhaps cows, pigs, chicken or indeed rats rival our success, but only because they depend on us breeding them (unintentionally). Human sexuality is tailored to maximize the survival probability of offspring that requires many years of active care and significantly impedes the capabilities of the pregnant female for several months. We are rather special concerning our prolonged development inside and outside of the womb, hence our sex life is, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Faith alone just isn't going to cut it.
There is no morality without faith in something. I'm not saying that atheists have no morality. I'm saying that they must have faith in something in order to make their moral claims. Faith is the only thing that can cut an "ought" from "is", we merely get to choose in what way that happens.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for a right of free sexual expression, bollocks. I don't believe that anyone has the right to fuck kids.
That's hardly a conclusive counterargument. It could be merely an instance of one right clashing with another. In which case you are simply saying which right gets priority in a clash. And it looks by your further comments as if this is the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think so, too, but I didn't want to argue it on faith and morals, because quite frankly, based on what the Catholic contributors here have said, I don't understand Catholic morals, and to the extent that I do understand them, I don't consider them particularly Christian. It seems to me that our Lord Jesus, when teaching about the keeping of the Law, thought that outcomes mattered. He acknowledged the commandments, acknowledged that God had given them, but said that the Pharisees had missed the entire point. Breaking the law was not in and of itself evil. The laws were ordered to bring about good results. If the law interfered with that, then according to Him, it was lawful to do things that brought about good results, even on the sabbath.
I think this is an overly simplistic view of Jesus' approach. Jesus also said "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) Jesus acknowledged the power of religious authority (even when they were less than exemplary themselves) "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice." (Matt 23:2) and he explicitly installed such authority "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt 18:18) And of course he does quite a bit of tightening the existing rules in the "You have heard that it was said, ... But I say to you" (Matt 5) style.
In fact, the example of sabbath is pertinent. Jesus did not at all declare that "it was lawful to do things that brought about good results" on sabbath, i.e., that one could do evil (break the laws of sabbath) in order to achieve good. Rather he said "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27,28) Thus Jesus argues that the regulations of the Pharisees did not match the intentions God had for the sabbath and that hence He had the authority to overturn these regulations as God become man. Likewise He dealt with kosher food, asking "Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body." (Mk 7:18,19) The regulations of the Pharisees were simply not matching God's intentions; they were focused on the wrong body part, metaphorically speaking. And what then does one have to actually avoid? "For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come - sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." (Mk 7:21) That's quite a list, and sexual immorality is explicitly included. Presumably then there were sexual acts that Jesus considered "unlawful", or these words become meaningless.
It is true that Jesus was modifying or abolishing much of the elaborate regulation system of the Pharisees. This neither means that he abolished all law, nor that he rejected religious authority imposing such law. Instead, He was establishing a new law with new authorities to guard and interpret it. This new law certainly favours ethical over ritual observance etc. But this does not mean that discussions about say contraception are now ruled out. After all, we are not fighting about the ritual detail of unrolling a condom in the right manner. We are precisely fighting about the ethical implications of contraception. Whether one believes the RCC has it right or wrong on contraception, the arguments and concerns involved are undeniably Christian. They are about what it is right for us to do because of how God made us and what God has said He wants us to do. They are just not Pharisaic rules of the type "we declare by our authority that these arbitrary actions are mandatory henceforth to remain ritually clean".
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And the claim that sex produces mystical benefits only when you might have a baby, and if you use contraception then God can't give you a baby is one of the most totally bogus things I've ever heard. If God can give a virgin a baby, you think a condom is going to get in his way if he decides to give you one?
Firstly, it is nonsense to involve the virgin birth in discussion of regular human reproduction in general, since the very point of that miracle was that it wasn't regular human reproduction. Secondly, the claim is not that God cannot possibly overcome a condom. The claim is that God has to act differently. In natural infertility, God has to overcome Himself, so to speak: the way He has made human beings, or perhaps, the fate He has assigned a particular human being. In artificial infertility, God has to overcome the actions of (one of) the spouses. "Man puts on a condom, God has to pop it." vs. "God does something unusual, contrary to man's expectations."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
All this crap can't happen in Dead Horses or Purg for what reason ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And under the assumption of "natural moral law", I am arguing that sex is ordered to the social and pleasurable functions to the active detriment of procreation in a way seen in very few other species.
... Human sexuality is tailored to maximize the survival probability of offspring that requires many years of active care and significantly impedes the capabilities of the pregnant female for several months. ...
But thinking of it in the most basic biological terms, would human males stick around and help with the offspring if they weren't getting regular, enjoyable, NON-PROCREATIVE sex? Even in the biggest, most Catholic family, for every sex act that results in a pregnancy, there are dozens, hundreds, thousands more acts that didn't. Non-procreative, pleasurable sexual activity is one of the elements that makes this reproductive strategy work, and in terms of sheer numbers, is overwhelmingly the most common or popular form of sex. Having fewer children in order to maximize resources devoted to each is also part of human reproductive strategy. So it's kind of looking like "naturally", a human couple should be having as much sex as possible but few* children, exactly what contraception allows. OliviaG
*Obviously there's a balance, it being a reproductive disaster if an only child fails to survive after it's too late to have another one.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In artificial infertility, God has to overcome the actions of (one of) the spouses. "Man puts on a condom, God has to pop it." vs. "God does something unusual, contrary to man's expectations."
The difference being? Who expects a condom to pop? Why couldn't God make it pop? Hell of a lot easier than making a baby inside a woman who has had a hysterectomy for life-saving reasons, and yet such a woman is allowed to have sex.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
God apparently has better control over our bodies than over things we manufacture. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I mean, seriously, Ingo, that is one of THE dumbest things I've ever heard coming out of your mouth. Suddenly God isn't Lord of all, he's just Lord of the bits he made directly? And if his own creations go ahead and create something themselves, with the innate sense of creativity he gave them, God goes "Holy Shit! I hadn't thought of that!! I'm in trouble now!"???
That is just hilarious.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I mean, seriously, Ingo, that is one of THE dumbest things I've ever heard coming out of your mouth. Suddenly God isn't Lord of all, he's just Lord of the bits he made directly? And if his own creations go ahead and create something themselves, with the innate sense of creativity he gave them, God goes "Holy Shit! I hadn't thought of that!! I'm in trouble now!"???
This would explain so much. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Might be a corollary to "God's Final Message To Creation" from the H2G2 books:
We apologize for the inconvenience.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
All this crap can't happen in Dead Horses or Purg for what reason ?
In complete agreement.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
All this crap can't happen in Dead Horses or Purg for what reason ?
In complete agreement.
My sympathies, but I'm glad the thread is still open so I can post this:
I feel sorry for IngoB's wife.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God apparently has better control over our bodies than over things we manufacture.
I mean, seriously, Ingo, that is one of THE dumbest things I've ever heard coming out of your mouth. Suddenly God isn't Lord of all, he's just Lord of the bits he made directly? And if his own creations go ahead and create something themselves, with the innate sense of creativity he gave them, God goes "Holy Shit! I hadn't thought of that!! I'm in trouble now!"???
That is just hilarious.
That's the RCC's peculiar slant on sexual morality for you. The Church depends on the logical sophistry of people like IngoB and the minority of bishops who opposed the findings of Paul VI own appointed study on sexuality. The rest is handled by Catholics who just shrug: "The RCC is always right and when it's wrong, it's still always right. Just get me to Mass on time".
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Read Romans 12:1. ... See also v 4,5, 10. You have failed to read for context. Romans 12 is addressed to a whole church. Indeed, since the letter is generally reckoned to have been used as an encyclical, it was addressed to many churches.
That made no sense at all. Obviously one can address the whole Church about how individual Christians should live their lives.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Really? All that speculation on Limbo, but nothing at all on how a single fertilization (an individual human being according to you) results in two people?
Yes, one can speculate about Limbo easily from the actual deposit of faith, but about twining not so much.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And my point was that a theory of individual human nature purporting to be a sure guide to addressing pressing moral issues might be expected to answer a few obvious follow-up questions.
But as far as moral issues are concerned, the answers are all there. The life of any innocent human being must be protected, and this includes human beings still developing, even from their very beginnings. The details of these beginnings are interesting, but morally essentially irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you claim. But do not establish.
False. I have argued, in my opinion conclusively. You now make the claim that I did not establish my point. Hence you must now support your claim with argument, or have it dismissed as a mere assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Other than our Lord's miraculous Incarnation, what other ways are there?
Twining. Pay attention.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So it's kind of looking like "naturally", a human couple should be having as much sex as possible but few* children, exactly what contraception allows.
The goal of contraception is, or at least can be, good. It is as a means that it is fails. Other means are available.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The difference being? Who expects a condom to pop? Why couldn't God make it pop? Hell of a lot easier than making a baby inside a woman who has had a hysterectomy for life-saving reasons, and yet such a woman is allowed to have sex.
If God wants to make every woman on this planet pregnant in this instance, He of course can. The difference is not in impeding His omnipotence, but in the question whether He "overcomes" His own actions or ours. (Scare quotes because He only overcomes His own actions in a manner of speaking.) A hysterectomy is a bit of a special case. In the context here, God would still be "overcoming" His own action if He made such a woman pregnant. While the hysterectomy was performed by a surgeon, it was performed in reaction to the woman's life being threatened, which was according to God's will (at least in the sense that He allowed it to happen "naturally"). If one could imagine that a woman would have a hysterectomy in order to avoid further pregnancy, then God would have to overcome her actions and this would be a crass form of "contraception" (sterilization).
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I mean, seriously, Ingo, that is one of THE dumbest things I've ever heard coming out of your mouth. Suddenly God isn't Lord of all, he's just Lord of the bits he made directly? And if his own creations go ahead and create something themselves, with the innate sense of creativity he gave them, God goes "Holy Shit! I hadn't thought of that!! I'm in trouble now!"???
This is not about what God can do. He can do whatever is possible. This is a thought experiment about who is responsible in a moral sense.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel sorry for IngoB's wife.
Why? (Unless this is simply intended as random insult.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So it's kind of looking like "naturally", a human couple should be having as much sex as possible but few* children, exactly what contraception allows.
The goal of contraception is, or at least can be, good. It is as a means that it is fails. Other means are available.
Oh, right, that thing about "evil" means for good ends. Crucifixion is evil. And yet Jesus was crucified for you and all your fellow Christians. Or how about asking a father to kill his son to prove his faith (oh, but lookie here! a sheep - just kidding!). Don't make me drag out the Bible and start pointing to all the other places where God uses some pretty awful means to accomplish Her ends. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel sorry for IngoB's wife.
Why? (Unless this is simply intended as random insult.)
I don't know about RuthW, but all I can say is that it must be really great to be married to someone who's always right. OliviaG
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel sorry for IngoB's wife.
Why? (Unless this is simply intended as random insult.)
Oh no, not random at all. I feel sorry for her because your attitude toward sex as presented on this thread is such a mess and because you always come off as such an ass on these boards. (I also feel a little sorry for those who think they'll have fun with your Minecraft endeavor, but since they aren't married to you they can just quit.)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is not about what God can do. He can do whatever is possible. This is a thought experiment about who is responsible in a moral sense.
So people who practice NFP are responsible in a moral sense for preventing pregnancy. Got it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I can't see how that works, since it really is intended as a simple factual statement. It rather could be case of grand delusion. If I proclaim loudly that I am the best tennis player in the world, then I am deluded not proud.
If I claim I'm the best tennis player in the world and then try swaggering in and claiming that everyone should follow my views on tennis then I'm proud. You swagger around actively boasting about the moral teachings of a church that simply doesn't care how many women it kills. You are claiming that you are a better tennis player than Djokovitch when you don't even qualify for the first round at Wimbledon.
quote:
And since you are undeniably wrong on purely biological grounds, your argument is stone cold dead. In case you haven't noticed, humanity represents arguably the most successfully breeding mammal (and indeed higher animal other than insects) on the planet to the point where most people are worried about humans overpopulating the world, rather than facing extinction.
And you are making an obvious logical fallacy. That humans are the most successful mammal in the world has little directly to do with sex. We just need to be fertile enough to procreate at above replacement rate. What makes us successful is our ability to alter our environment to suit us. And one part of controling our environment is controlling our procreation.
We didn't reach the top of the tree simply by outbreeding the competition. If the fertility rate were the critical determining factor then think how many tadpoles each frog has.
Humans are the best on our strategy because we have tools, and because we have complex social mechanisms that can extend beyond the pack and neighbouring packs. Part of this is language, part of this is the opposable thumb, part of this is the brain. And there are minor adaptions. Sex being not exclusively for direct procreation is one such.
quote:
Human sexuality is tailored to maximize the survival probability of offspring that requires many years of active care and significantly impedes the capabilities of the pregnant female for several months. We are rather special concerning our prolonged development inside and outside of the womb, hence our sex life is, too.
In short sex without fertility is natural. Right. Now we've established that even you think that then can you stop objecting?
quote:
There is no morality without faith in something.
I said faith alone. Faith without works is dead. You are trying to substitute faith for discernment and throwing out discernment when it doesn't give you the answer you want.
That's hardly a conclusive counterargument. It could be merely an instance of one right clashing with another. In which case you are simply saying which right gets priority in a clash. And it looks by your further comments as if this is the case.
quote:
I think this is an overly simplistic view of Jesus' approach. Jesus also said "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18)
And the two are not in direct contradiction. The Law was developed for a purpose. The Sabbath has a purpose. But the Sabbath was made for man. You seek to fit man to the Sabbath.
quote:
That's quite a list, and sexual immorality is explicitly included. Presumably then there were sexual acts that Jesus considered "unlawful", or these words become meaningless.
Right. Now tell me what they were. Starter for ten - any sort of sex that involves an abuse of power. Paedophillia, bestiality, rape.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Really? All that speculation on Limbo, but nothing at all on how a single fertilization (an individual human being according to you) results in two people?
Yes, one can speculate about Limbo easily from the actual deposit of faith, but about twining not so much.
This sounds a lot like "we can speculate about things which have already been speculated about."
By the way, it's "twinning", not "twining."
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And my point was that a theory of individual human nature purporting to be a sure guide to addressing pressing moral issues might be expected to answer a few obvious follow-up questions.
But as far as moral issues are concerned, the answers are all there.
There's no shortage of people with certain answers to moral issues, IngoB, and I never doubted you were one of them. People with answers whose vaunted theoretical foundations can satisfy a little poking around seem to be a rather harder to find.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sine Nomine
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 66
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel sorry for her because your attitude toward sex as presented on this thread is such a mess
Well you know what Bette Midler said about her German husband.
--------------------
Precious, Precious, Sweet, Sweet Daddy...
Posts: 16639 | From: lat. 36.24/lon. 86.84 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I just noticed the bit where Ingo claims 'human sexuality' is tailored to maximise survival of offspring.
What rot, in the context of this thread. There might be an argument that monogamy is a good strategy for raising offspring, but if so it's got absolutely nothing to do with the sexual act itself being naturally fertile and productive.
Because it isn't. See Justinian's comment about tadpoles. Human sex is not very good at producing fertilised eggs, and the vast majority of those fertilised eggs never last past the first couple of months of pregnancy.
[ 24. February 2012, 05:05: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Read Romans 12:1. ... See also v 4,5, 10. You have failed to read for context. Romans 12 is addressed to a whole church. Indeed, since the letter is generally reckoned to have been used as an encyclical, it was addressed to many churches.
That made no sense at all. Obviously one can address the whole Church about how individual Christians should live their lives.
I'll take it to Kerygmania, IngoB. I think you're wrong to limit the meaning this way, both by reference to context and supporting scriptures, but it shouldn't clutter up this thread.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Originally posted by Dave W:
quote:
By the way, it's "twinning", not "twining."
Oh, I wish you hadn't told him that. I was quite enjoying all this stuff about twining. I'm not sure what the morality about twine as opposed to string is though, can't follow the argument, it seems a distinction without a difference.
M.
[ 24. February 2012, 06:48: Message edited by: M. ]
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
That's quite a list, and sexual immorality is explicitly included. Presumably then there were sexual acts that Jesus considered "unlawful", or these words become meaningless.
Right. Now tell me what they were. Starter for ten - any sort of sex that involves an abuse of power. Paedophillia, bestiality, rape.
And it seems that, to the RCC hierarchy (but hopefully not to Ingo!!), that it's more important to protect embryos than to protect children who are actually here from sexual abuse. Keep women from having abortions, keep them from non-abortively limiting their pregnancies, excommunicate them if they fail those rules. Never mind if a girl or woman is pregnant due to rape or incest, and can’t cope with 9 more months of suffering at their abuser’s will.
Not to mention the insane rules about ending an ectopic pregnancy.
And God forbid that a sacramentally-married couple might have some fun, without wanting a baby to result and without waiting until the appropriate, fallible time in the woman's cycle.
But if Catholics in religious orders sexually abuse a child (or many children), you gotta cover it up, move the abusers around, lie through your teeth, and break all sorts of laws. Even if the children kill themselves to end the suffering that results from abuse..
Gotta circle the wagons and protect the clergy.
Bet they’d do that even if a priest abused Baby Jesus.
But God forbid that people use contraception.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Feel better now? Let it all out. Bile poisons.
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love is healed."--Buddha (found somewhere on the web)
[ 24. February 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: PeteC ]
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I feel sorry for her because your attitude toward sex as presented on this thread is such a mess
That's what I thought and that's why I asked. I'm still curious what specific conclusions you think you can draw about my "attitude toward sex", other than the obvious one that we do not use contraception (but rather natural family planning).
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
(I also feel a little sorry for those who think they'll have fun with your Minecraft endeavor, but since they aren't married to you they can just quit.)
This is getting a bit random now, isn't it? Minecraft is a huge sandbox game. People will have to do with me as much as they want, and no more. There are no rules to enforce, other than that one shouldn't mess with other people's buildings. And the only thing I intend to pre-build is an area around spawn secured against hostile mobiles, so that people can log in safely for a chat without having to play the game as such.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Feel better now? Let it all out. Bile poisons.
Yup.
Strangely, I think kids (and grownups!) should be protected from sexual abuse.
quote:
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love is healed."--Buddha (found somewhere on the web)
More anger than hatred, I think.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Strangely, I think kids (and grownups!) should be protected from sexual abuse.
That is true for all of us. But if you want to carry on the discussion, go somewhere else.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB: In case you haven't noticed, humanity represents arguably the most successfully breeding mammal (and indeed higher animal other than insects) on the planet
Based on what I see in my garden, I'd say that that title goes to the mice.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
And rabbits. And feral cats. Don't leave anyone out.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Oh, right, that thing about "evil" means for good ends. Crucifixion is evil. And yet Jesus was crucified for you and all your fellow Christians.
He was crucified, He did not crucify Himself. He did not do evil to achieve good, He worked good out of an evil others were responsible for. He did not avoid or prevent their evil, rather He used it to achieve His aims fully conscious when, where and how it would occur, but still it was not His evil but theirs. Incidentally, this does map onto the discussion of why NFP is licit but a condom is not.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Or how about asking a father to kill his son to prove his faith (oh, but lookie here! a sheep - just kidding!). Don't make me drag out the Bible and start pointing to all the other places where God uses some pretty awful means to accomplish Her ends.
I'm sure that you can convince me that you are a de facto Marcionist. Many Christians nowadays are heretic that way, even if few of them realize it.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Got it.
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You swagger around actively boasting about the moral teachings of a church that simply doesn't care how many women it kills.
I guess it is understood that I reject your claim about my Church. But I'm really intrigued by this claim of pride. It is both not entirely wrong and totally risible. A bit as if analysed something with Newton's laws and in response was accused of swaggering around actively boasting about the natural laws of physics. Except of course that there is a faith component involved here. Really, quite fascinating.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That humans are the most successful mammal in the world has little directly to do with sex. We just need to be fertile enough to procreate at above replacement rate.
Well, in the sense of having survival rates well above replacement rate in pretty much any circumstances pretty much everywhere pretty much all the time. Not in the sense of simply putting offspring into the world in great numbers. If these offspring die before they can reproduce themselves, that does not lead to population growth. Humans, for rather obvious reasons, do not follow the strategy of pumping out a massive amount of offspring given next to no care, in the hope that some survive. The human reproductive strategy is pretty much the opposite extreme, having relatively few offspring but providing an insane amount of care to keep them alive. And it is highly successful.
It was your claim that the primary purpose of sex can be ignored because secondary purposes interfere with it anyway. This claim is complete bollocks. Firstly, there cannot be any serious interference there, or we would not be so incredibly successful at reproducing. Secondly, the secondary purposes of human sex are biologically speaking nothing but part of the human reproductive strategy, which in particular requires binding the male to the female for many years in order to provide continuous care to highly vulnerable offspring. From an evolutionary perspective, all humans do is in the end somehow about reproductive success, or at least it is accidentally related to it. I'll happily agree that it is a mistake to take a purely evolutionary view of humanity. But if we are talking about reproductive success on biological terms, then the various cultural and social ways in which humans control their environment are again nothing but specific examples of animal behaviour for increasing reproductive success.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
In short sex without fertility is natural. Right. Now we've established that even you think that then can you stop objecting?
I've never objected morally to naturally infertile sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Right. Now tell me what they were. Starter for ten - any sort of sex that involves an abuse of power. Paedophillia, bestiality, rape.
And then any sort of sex at odds with the function God intended for it. Homosexual acts. Masturbation. Contraceptive sex. Any sort of sex that occurs outside of the setting God intended for it. Adultery. Fornication. Incest. You know what, I think it might actually be easier to say what is allowed, rather than trying to draw up a comprehensive list of what is forbidden?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This sounds a lot like "we can speculate about things which have already been speculated about."
All you want to do here is to pretend that because theology cannot answer all questions, it must be generally incompetent. It is however really quite simple. If you want to know whether theology can answer X, you have to ask whether authoritative sources (scripture, Church fathers, ...) spoke about X, or whether they at least spoke about something else, from which one can draw conclusions about X, or whether there exists sound knowledge of the world which in combination with some authoritative religious statements allows some speculation about X. This is the case for Limbo (marginally - Limbo is after all known for being a disputed theological subject), it is to the best of my knowledge not the case for the question when and how precisely God "ensouls" human beings. Mind you, that He "ensouls" them can be theologically argued with ease, and a strong case can be made that a soul must be present from the earliest development. But all that does not allow one to say how twinning (thanks for the spelling correction!) rearranges "soul distribution".
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
People with answers whose vaunted theoretical foundations can satisfy a little poking around seem to be a rather harder to find.
You expect that wherever you poke a ready answer must be forthcoming, or it is all nonsense. That's simply a totally unrealistic expectation. Theology is a human endeavour.
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
And rabbits. And feral cats. Don't leave anyone out.
Rabbits. Hmm. Fair enough. Maybe humans do not top the mammal list on accumulated biomass after all, even if one ignores those animals that clearly profit from human success (like mice and cows). Anyway, humans do pretty damn well in the reproductive stakes, that was my real point.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I guess it is understood that I reject your claim about my Church. But I'm really intrigued by this claim of pride. It is both not entirely wrong and totally risible. A bit as if analysed something with Newton's laws and in response was accused of swaggering around actively boasting about the natural laws of physics.
Oh, nonsense. No one wants to force people to follow Newton's Laws. And Newton's Laws are on a sound empirical footing (except up near the speed of light). It doesn't matter who does the test, keep speeds less than 300,000 m/s and Newtonian physics will be supported to a very high degree of precision.
Any morality that ranks what people do with pieces of latex above human lives is trivially seen to be wrong by almost everyone indoctrinated by the Roman Catholic Church. It matters who does the test here in the way that homeopaths can pass their own tests.
Any system of morality that leads to people assisting in such scandals as the Roman Catholic Church has suffered recently is obviously not terribly effective. Here the RCC doesn't even pass their own tests.
When the leaders of your Church have provided qualified support to Hitler, and out and out support to Franco, Massera (with Pio Laghi being his tennis partner), and others, claiming that the status of Catholic Morality is in any way comparable to Newtonian physicsis just plain risible.
Your attempted claim about the superiority of Roman Catholic morality being akin to that of Newtonian Physics is just plain wrong. It's pride without substance. It's the arrogance of the homeopath who is utterly unable to show results under double blind conditions.
quote:
Except of course that there is a faith component involved here. Really, quite fascinating.
There is a faith component. There are also dead and crippled bodies.
quote:
The human reproductive strategy is pretty much the opposite extreme, having relatively few offspring but providing an insane amount of care to keep them alive. And it is highly successful.
Indeed. It's at the extreme of limited reproduction. And with modern medicine it is even more extreme than it has been historically.
quote:
It was your claim that the primary purpose of sex can be ignored because secondary purposes interfere with it anyway. This claim is complete bollocks. Firstly, there cannot be any serious interference there, or we would not be so incredibly successful at reproducing.
Oh, rubbish. It simply depends what you mean by interference. And believe it or not, with modern medicine, the situation has changed. Historically, women have had a dozen children just to maintain the population. With modern medicine we can do it with 2.1
Now would you kindly tell me whether you want to give up modern medicine, or whether you would prefer to stick to the natural cycle. One of the things humans do is regulate our environment. And we've done so superbly. Superbly enough that the conditions our fertility rates are adapted to no longer hold.
quote:
Secondly, the secondary purposes of human sex are biologically speaking nothing but part of the human reproductive strategy, which in particular requires binding the male to the female for many years in order to provide continuous care to highly vulnerable offspring.
And one of the ways it does that is regular non-procreative sex. With the survival rate having changed massively, regular baby production is not a desired end. We need a birth rate of about one sixth of historical levels. A birth rate at historical levels would be catastrophic.
But you seek to block the physical elements to these ties. You seek to either retain the historical birth rate while we have modern medical science, thus making the Baby Boom seem like a blip until we return to a Malthusian society or to loosen the bonds between parents which are a consequence of physical intimacy.
quote:
And then any sort of sex at odds with the function God intended for it.
And this is what I mean by pride. You have the arrogance to claim to know the mind of God with complete certainty.
quote:
Homosexual acts. Masturbation. Contraceptive sex. Any sort of sex that occurs outside of the setting God intended for it. Adultery. Fornication.
I.e. anything a celibate priest might possibly consider icky.
quote:
Incest.
Incest is the only one of those I'd actually call unnatural. And that's because we know what the direct mechanism preventing it is. The Westermark Effect. (Which involves close physical proximity at a young age).
quote:
You know what, I think it might actually be easier to say what is allowed, rather than trying to draw up a comprehensive list of what is forbidden?
And I consider this a sad reflection on the state of your thought and sex life, and where you see Light in the world.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Likewise the existence of human genetic chimeras (where one human person results from two fertilized eggs).
Again, why would this represent the slightest difficulty? It is an unusual death to have one's cells fused with that of another, but people die in all sort of strange ways.
If that's what happens, which of the individuals is the one that died? Or did they both die and a third "person" come into existence at that point?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The RCC, on the other hand, seeks to force everyone it has any kind of power over - non-RCC employees, in this case - to obey its strictures.
I'm not particularly following the health care side of things. It is entirely possible that the US RCC has a terrible position on this. Or not.
This pretty much summarizes everything wrong with the Catholic posturing on this issue.
Fair treatment of workers: meh
Determining when a ghost starts haunting a cluster of cells: CRITICAL!!!1!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
In Bed with the Irish offers a few wee highlights - a bit of light relief to this thread, perhaps!
Start at 29:40, for the more pertinent references. Though the several minutes before that point also deals with sexual habits and attitudes: the whole programme is fairly entertaining and interesting.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This pretty much summarizes everything wrong with the Catholic posturing on this issue.
Fair treatment of workers: meh
Determining when a ghost starts haunting a cluster of cells: CRITICAL!!!1!
I wish it was just that. Instead it's
Fair Treatment of Workers: Meh. We'll talk about it and eventually get round to it tomorrow, God willing.
Determining when a ghost starts haunting a cluster of cells: CRITICAL!!!1!
Making sure that sluts keep their legs together by spouting untruths and attempting to deny them healthcare: Religious FreeeeDOM!!11!!!
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your attempted claim about the superiority of Roman Catholic morality being akin to that of Newtonian Physics is just plain wrong.
Reading comprehension is not your strength, is it? Anyway, apparently accidentally, you've hit upon something interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Now would you kindly tell me whether you want to give up modern medicine, or whether you would prefer to stick to the natural cycle.
It was modern medicine that has taught us how to efficiently limit the number of our children by making informed use of the natural cycle of female fertility.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You seek to either retain the historical birth rate while we have modern medical science, thus making the Baby Boom seem like a blip until we return to a Malthusian society or to loosen the bonds between parents which are a consequence of physical intimacy.
Let me get this straight, your marriage is in grave danger if you have to wait two weeks for sex?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You have the arrogance to claim to know the mind of God with complete certainty.
Not really. Rather I trust sufficiently in Divine assistance to the Church to follow her rules on the matter.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your attempted claim about the superiority of Roman Catholic morality being akin to that of Newtonian Physics is just plain wrong.
Reading comprehension is not your strength, is it? Anyway, apparently accidentally, you've hit upon something interesting.
Yes it is. You're claiming faith as your justification. Homeopaths have faith in their medicine working. It happens to be wrong. Just because you have faith in something doesn't make it either true or unverifiable.
quote:
It was modern medicine that has taught us how to efficiently limit the number of our children by making informed use of the natural cycle of female fertility.
And how to do things efficiently.
quote:
Let me get this straight, your marriage is in grave danger if you have to wait two weeks for sex?
No. Of course I don't. No one factor like that is going to destroy a relationship. It is merely one of the purposes of sex - and a purpose you seek to deny.
I do not believe that things necessarily have only one purpose. I don't believe evolution to be that simplistic - and I don't believe that anything responsible for the wonder of nature could be that simple-minded.
quote:
Not really. Rather I trust sufficiently in Divine assistance to the Church to follow her rules on the matter.
OK. You claim the Church to know the mind of God which gives you effectively infalliable insight. And you can safely discard your conscience to the strictly deontological ethics of that Church.
[ 24. February 2012, 16:46: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If that's what happens, which of the individuals is the one that died? Or did they both die and a third "person" come into existence at that point?
I don't know. I don't know how to find out. I don't know why that would make a moral difference to anything we can do.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This pretty much summarizes everything wrong with the Catholic posturing on this issue. Fair treatment of workers: meh Determining when a ghost starts haunting a cluster of cells: CRITICAL!!!1!
I live in Europe. We have had universal health care here, secularly managed, since long before I was born. The health funds in all countries where I have lived pay for contraceptives and abortion. An individual generally has no say whatever in determining the way their contributions to the health funds are spent, on reproductive health or anything else, other than indirectly through electing politicians. And that's by and large OK with me. The way forward on contraceptives and abortion is to win over people. Politics and eventually law will then follow. We certainly do not need a "prohibition" type of scenario for laws about sexual matters.
All this does not mean that I'm on this or that US side. I just don't care much about the fight going on there. It's a different situation, it's their business, let them sort it out.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is merely one of the purposes of sex - and a purpose you seek to deny.
Why would I seek to deny other purposes? I haven't and I won't. Of course, if I choose not to have sex for a while in order to avoid additional offspring, then I'm also denying myself the uniting benefits of sex. But it happens quite often in relationships that one has to set priorities and forego one good for another. Such is life.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You claim the Church to know the mind of God which gives you effectively infalliable insight. And you can safely discard your conscience to the strictly deontological ethics of that Church.
The Church only rarely claims infallibile insight. To make a moral decision, we must follow our best insight. Absolute certainty is not required. And you seem to think of conscience here as some sort of independent entity generating moral truth. That's of course nonsense. There is a kind of innate moral sense (technical term in scholasticism: synderesis). But that is really basic. For most practical moral decision we must rely heavily on a conscience that has been formed and informed by input from others. I've simply decided that the Church will feature prominently in forming and informing my conscience, you have other inputs forming and informing yours (whether you are conscious of that or not).
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Why would I seek to deny other purposes? I haven't and I won't.
But that is exactly what you do do. You claim that sex is ordered to procreation and therefore that any form of sex that can't directly lead to procreation is wrong.
quote:
The Church only rarely claims infallibile insight. To make a moral decision, we must follow our best insight. Absolute certainty is not required. And you seem to think of conscience here as some sort of independent entity generating moral truth. That's of course nonsense. There is a kind of innate moral sense (technical term in scholasticism: synderesis). But that is really basic.
And yet even the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics have a strong enough moral sense to tell the Roman Catholic Church to shove it on this case. "Don't prevent medical care" is the level of basic that innate moral sense can handle. And the Roman Catholic Church is on this point in complete violation of that.
quote:
I've simply decided that the Church will feature prominently in forming and informing my conscience, you have other inputs forming and informing yours (whether you are conscious of that or not).
You have decided that the Church will not only feature in informing your conscience, it will override your innate moral sense - which means that you are abdicating your own responsibility to check your ethics to the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, I believe it is that obvious that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, and wrong with tragic consequences.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Got it.
Nope.
All I can conclude is that you maintain blindly that there is a difference between NFP and condoms or oral contraceptives, "by faith." Because when asked to explain it, you admit you cannot do so in terms that anybody outside the RCC would accept.
What a fucking stupid hill to die on.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
This sounds a lot like "we can speculate about things which have already been speculated about."
All you want to do here is to pretend that because theology cannot answer all questions, it must be generally incompetent.
Oh, bullshit. I neither want to pretend such a thing, nor do I believe you can honestly conclude that I do from anything I've written here.
What I asked was a pretty simple, obvious question: quote:
How does your statement that "there exists an identifiably individual human being from the moment that an egg gets fertilized" square with the existence of monozygotic twins?
I actually expected that there probably would be an answer – and for all I know, there is one. (After all, I think it really is a simple, obvious question – which you haven’t denied – and thus one that would have occurred to RC theologians.)
But I suppose that I'll have to reconcile myself to the fact that I can't expect to get it from you. It appears to me that you "want to pretend" that you’re relying on an unassailable logical theological structure, but when asked a simple, obvious question about how it works your responses start with dismissal and quickly slide to attacks on strawmen (“You likely think of theology as a near arbitrary selection of proposition”, “You want to pretend...”)
quote:
If you want to know whether theology can answer X, you have to ask whether authoritative sources (scripture, Church fathers, ...) spoke about X, or whether they at least spoke about something else, from which one can draw conclusions about X, or whether there exists sound knowledge of the world which in combination with some authoritative religious statements allows some speculation about X. This is the case for Limbo (marginally - Limbo is after all known for being a disputed theological subject), it is to the best of my knowledge not the case for the question when and how precisely God "ensouls" human beings.
At this point I rather suspect that you don't actually know whether or not there's anything in RC theology that addresses this question. I see no reason to think that "the best of your knowledge" is particularly informed on this point.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
People with answers whose vaunted theoretical foundations can satisfy a little poking around seem to be a rather harder to find.
You expect that wherever you poke a ready answer must be forthcoming, or it is all nonsense.
Again, bullshit. I've never suggested that RC theology is all nonsense, and I certainly don't think that it stands or falls on the fateful question of monozygotic twins.
But it looks like additional discussion will probably just elicit more of your opinions about what I expect, or what I likely think, or what I want to pretend. And I'm pretty sure I've got a better handle on that than you do, so forget I asked.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Meanwhile Rome fiddles while Nero keeps having bairns.
AtB Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But that is exactly what you do do. You claim that sex is ordered to procreation and therefore that any form of sex that can't directly lead to procreation is wrong.
Firstly, that's not quite right, unless you include the miraculous among direct causes. Secondly, even if I said that, then your conclusion doesn't follow. To say that something requires purpose X does not deny purpose Y. It merely says that purpose Y on its own is not enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And yet even the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics have a strong enough moral sense to tell the Roman Catholic Church to shove it on this case.
Firstly, which case? You may be right for the case of contraception, but I doubt that you are right for the case of abortion. Secondly, numbers on this are largely obtained by inference, which is suboptimal. Thirdly, that someone believes to have "good reason" for something does not necessarily mean that it is moral. People can have immoral motivations and desires and/or follow faulty reasoning.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"Don't prevent medical care" is the level of basic that innate moral sense can handle.
Would you consider contraception medical care then, in general? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, fertility is not a sickness. Which incidentally immediately tells you that this is not merely a matter for synderesis. As long as we need to think about definitions and circumstances at all, we are firmly in the realm of conscience. Competing moral goods occur and that something is "more obvious" to one's moral sense unfortunately does not make it "more important" all the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Yes, I believe it is that obvious that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong, and wrong with tragic consequences.
Sure. And I think the very same about your morals on these matters. The difference between us is that you feel compelled to rant like Rumpelstilzchen about it all, whereas I think that achieves nothing.
In my opinion this situation is stuck because people appear incapable of separating principled moral argument from questions of individual culpability and pragmatic social engineering. There is just a total lack of sophistication in these exchanges. Every time it ends up in an attack on principles, and always with the biggest rhetorical guns one can muster. I think livable compromises are available, certainly on contraception yet probably even on abortion, but not at the level of principle. Compromise can happen where things get murky, i.e., in the application to complex individual and social circumstances. Compromise cannot happen on the level of principles, which clearly clash.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
All I can conclude is that you maintain blindly that there is a difference between NFP and condoms or oral contraceptives, "by faith." Because when asked to explain it, you admit you cannot do so in terms that anybody outside the RCC would accept.
I've argued at length about the difference, and faith was not involved in that, see for example here. Where faith comes into the picture is on the question how important in a moral sense this difference is, not whether it exists. I also think that it is entirely feasible to agree with the RCC on the moral importance purely using natural reasoning (without faith). However, I do not think that this reasoning is conclusive, it has more probabilistic character ("it is likely that..., it may also be that..."). The problem then becomes that sexual motivations are very strong for most of us, so that in a conflict between likelihood and impulse likelihood is likely to lose. That's where faith steps in and elevates a possibility of natural reasoning to a certainty of belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I neither want to pretend such a thing, nor do I believe you can honestly conclude that I do from anything I've written here.
Well, I can honestly conclude that you think you are onto something, when honestly, you are not.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
(After all, I think it really is a simple, obvious question – which you haven’t denied – and thus one that would have occurred to RC theologians.)
And you seriously believe that simple questions always have readily available answers? What is the meaning of life? What is light? Who invented the wheel? How did life arise? Does she love me? How do I get promoted? Are there aliens out there? How to solve the crisis in Syria? Is spacetime quantized? How will we source our energy? Do I look fat in this dress? How does consciousness arise? Is capitalism the best economic system? Etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
At this point I rather suspect that you don't actually know whether or not there's anything in RC theology that addresses this question. I see no reason to think that "the best of your knowledge" is particularly informed on this point.
You could of course make an effort and try to find out. If it makes any difference to you, Trisagion independently asserted exactly the same point on this very thread, here.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I'll try this again with a host tag - THIS IS BOARD NOT DEAD HORSES.
If dead horse discussion continues, this thread will be as dead as the damn horse.
Think²
Hellhost
[ 25. February 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Think² ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I'll try this again with a host tag - THIS IS BOARD NOT DEAD HORSES.
If dead horse discussion continues, this thread will be as dead as the damn horse.
Think²
Hellhost
'with a host tag' does make a difference, Think 2. You can hardly blame people who want to discuss these things for their discussion when up to this point no hostly instruction had been given.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's where faith steps in and elevates a possibility of natural reasoning to a certainty of belief.
Except as a description of emotions, "certainty of belief" is an oxymoron.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I'll try this again with a host tag - THIS IS BOARD NOT DEAD HORSES.
If dead horse discussion continues, this thread will be as dead as the damn horse.
Think²
Hellhost
What, you think there isn't enough personal invective being thrown at the Catholics?
I was under the impression that it had been established that Hell could stray into Purgatory-like territory, just not the other way around.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
