An argument for the illegality of condoms

[preferanonymous]

“The only people I’ve met who don’t believe in natural law are either (a) unfamiliar with it or (b) are familiar with a gross caricature of it that in no way reflects reality (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).”

The concept of natural law only applies if you believe in a creator. Those who are atheist do not believe in natural law. No creator - no rules. Its as simple as that.

Your statement is false.

Yes, but one might argue that a Creator can be demonstrated rationally. This would be different, it seems, than if it relied on premises which could not be publicly justified. That said, I think you might be right about the Creator no rules notion.

 

[sw85]

Originally Posted by preferanonymous
“The only people I’ve met who don’t believe in natural law are either (a) unfamiliar with it or (b) are familiar with a gross caricature of it that in no way reflects reality (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).”

The concept of natural law only applies if you believe in a creator. Those who are atheist do not believe in natural law. No creator - no rules. Its as simple as that.

Your statement is false.

Uh, no, it doesn’t. Natural law does not make reference to the divine at all. It arises from a studied consideration of the nature of being.

How many times do I have to tell people to do their homework before presuming to comment on natural law? Simply astounding how many people have the temerity to pretend to be experts on a subject about which they CLEARLY know nothing, when there are so many books out there written for the layman.

 

[Geofarmer1]

Yes, but one might argue that a Creator can be demonstrated rationally. This would be different, it seems, than if it relied on premises which could not be publicly justified. That said, I think you might be right about the Creator no rules notion.

I have thought long and hard about these things. The entire thought process was brought on by the question contraception. As a I cradle catholic, unlike most of my generation (baby boomers) we actually studied the churches teachings about contraception and NFP. In the end I have become an agnostic. I don’t dispute the notion of a higher intelligence, but I just don’t buy the creation story and therefore natural law. I am also a conservative bordering on libertarian. I value my freedom to live my life the way I see fit and yours also.

 

[preferanonymous]

I have thought long and hard about these things. The entire thought process was brought on by the question contraception. As a I cradle catholic, unlike most of my generation (baby boomers) we actually studied the churches teachings about contraception and NFP. In the end I have become an agnostic. I don’t dispute the notion of a higher intelligence, but I just don’t buy the creation story and therefore natural law. I am also a conservative bordering on libertarian. I value my freedom to live my life the way I see fit and yours also.

Geofarmer, I think I would be hardpressed to fault you given the way that one might find contraception and the existence of God as argued for. Particularly if you have not, I would urge you to consider the writings of Elizabeth Anscombe, John Finnis, Germain Grisez, Robert George, Patrick Lee, and William May. Although perhaps still in the works, I think these authors provide at least a glimpse of what rationally compelling arguments for many of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality might look like. The arguments do not attempt to work with any notion of design or teleology which you, and I think perhaps quite rightly, might reject.

 

[preferanonymous]

Geofarmer, I think I might be hardpressed to fault you given what one might find concerning arguments about contraception and the existence of God. A rigorous respect for truth and logic is perhaps the most regrettable part of the world today. Particularly if you have not, I would urge you to consider the writings of Elizabeth Anscombe, John Finnis, Germain Grisez, Robert George, Patrick Lee, and William May. Although perhaps still very much in development, I think these authors provide at least a glimpse of what rationally compelling arguments for many of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality might look like. The arguments do not attempt to work with any notion of design or teleology which you, and I think perhaps quite rightly, might reject.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you legitimately of the opinion that there is no good reason to believe in Christianity or that I’m not familiar with them?

**I warn you, before you go down this road, I can tell already that I am much, *much ***smarter than you.

They are irrelevant to the present discussion. Saying “condoms won’t be banned under present political conditions” says nothing about the argument “condoms ought to be banned.”

Actually, I was being charitable.

The only people I’ve met who don’t believe in natural law are either (a) unfamiliar with it or (b) are familiar with a gross caricature of it that in no way reflects reality (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).

I have literally NEVER heard a good argument against natural law that didn’t hinge on either straw men or else straightforward denial of reality.

Now if you were attacking straw men your ignorance would be inexcusable, since you would be claiming expertise on something where you clearly have none. You would, in a sense, be a kind of liar. If you were denying reality so you could do whatever you want, then you would be intentionally *affecting *ignorance in the service of evil.

So you would be either ignorant, arrogant, or evil – charity demands that I give people the benefit of the doubt – so the logical conclusion would be that you are ignorant.

As I said, I was being charitable.

When you take umbrage to people suggesting you might be ignorant of what the Church teaches, it’s very hard to take you seriously when you go on to say **** like this.

Thoughts and feelings by themselves are never sinful. What is sinful is the disordered *will *that entertains or encourages them.

Please do your homework before presuming to comment on natural law. A good place to begin would be Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

LOL

Oh this is going be fun…

Based on what exactly?
You have certainly not impressed me with your clever use of language in this thread.
I could summarize the basic pattern in three words.

1. Deny
2. Insult
3. Deny

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you legitimately of the opinion that there is no good reason to believe in Christianity or that I’m not familiar with them?

I warn you, before you go down this road, I can tell already that I am much, *much *smarter than you.

They are irrelevant to the present discussion. Saying “condoms won’t be banned under present political conditions” says nothing about the argument “condoms ought to be banned.”

Actually, I was being charitable.

The only people I’ve met who don’t believe in natural law are either (a) unfamiliar with it or (b) are familiar with a gross caricature of it that in no way reflects reality (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).

I have literally NEVER heard a good argument against natural law that didn’t hinge on either straw men or else straightforward denial of reality.

Now if you were attacking straw men your ignorance would be inexcusable, since you would be claiming expertise on something where you clearly have none. You would, in a sense, be a kind of liar. If you were denying reality so you could do whatever you want, then you would be intentionally *affecting *ignorance in the service of evil.

So you would be either ignorant, arrogant, or evil – charity demands that I give people the benefit of the doubt – so the logical conclusion would be that you are ignorant.

As I said, I was being charitable.

**When you take umbrage to people suggesting you might be ignorant of what the Church teaches, it’s very hard to take you seriously when you go on to say **** like this.

Thoughts and feelings by themselves are never sinful. What is sinful is the disordered *will ***that entertains or encourages them.
Please do your homework before presuming to comment on natural law. A good place to begin would be Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

What are the Seven Deadly Sins but thoughts and feelings?
They are certainly not actions in of themselves.

This argument is not a good example of that intelligence you’re bragging about.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Are you legitimately of the opinion that there is no good reason to believe in Christianity or that I’m not familiar with them?

I warn you, before you go down this road, I can tell already that I am much, *much *smarter than you.

They are irrelevant to the present discussion. Saying “condoms won’t be banned under present political conditions” says nothing about the argument “condoms ought to be banned.”

**Actually, I was being charitable.

The only people I’ve met who don’t believe in natural law are either (a) unfamiliar with it or (b) are familiar with a gross caricature of it that in no way reflects reality (or are intentionally misrepresenting it).

I have literally NEVER heard a good argument against natural law that didn’t hinge on either straw men or else straightforward denial of reality.

Now if you were attacking straw men your ignorance would be inexcusable, since you would be claiming expertise on something where you clearly have none. You would, in a sense, be a kind of liar. If you were denying reality so you could do whatever you want, then you would be intentionally *affecting ***ignorance in the service of evil.

So you would be either ignorant, arrogant, or evil – charity demands that I give people the benefit of the doubt – so the logical conclusion would be that you are ignorant.

As I said, I was being charitable.

When you take umbrage to people suggesting you might be ignorant of what the Church teaches, it’s very hard to take you seriously when you go on to say **** like this.

Thoughts and feelings by themselves are never sinful. What is sinful is the disordered *will *that entertains or encourages them.

Please do your homework before presuming to comment on natural law. A good place to begin would be Edward Feser’s Aquinas.

No, you are not being charitable.
You are claiming that you are so smart and obviously right that the only way someone could disagree with you is if their ignorant, evil, or simply a liar.
That is the height of arrogance.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, but one might argue that a Creator can be demonstrated rationally. This would be different, it seems, than if it relied on premises which could not be publicly justified. That said, I think you might be right about the Creator no rules notion.

If someone needs the threat of God’s wrath to keep them acting morally, they were never really moral at all. Merely fearfully obedient.

I do not need the threat of hellfire to keep me from stealing, raping, or murdering.
Perhaps some do, but if so, that is because they are bad people.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Uh, no, it doesn’t. Natural law does not make reference to the divine at all. It arises from a studied consideration of the nature of being.

How many times do I have to tell people to do their homework before presuming to comment on natural law? Simply astounding how many people have the temerity to pretend to be experts on a subject about which they CLEARLY know nothing, when there are so many books out there written for the layman.

Another arrogant assumption.
How could you possibly know what Geofarmer1 has or hasn’t learned about Natural Law prior to this?

 

[sw85]

LOL

Oh this is going be fun…

Based on what exactly?
You have certainly not impressed me with your clever use of language in this thread.
I could summarize the basic pattern in three words.

1. Deny
2. Insult
3. Deny

There’s not much left to do when my opponents are solipsists, degenerates, illiterates, and morons.

What are the Seven Deadly Sins but thoughts and feelings?
They are certainly not actions in of themselves.

This argument is not a good example of that intelligence you’re bragging about.

Read the Catechism, foolish boy. And familiarize yourself with the subject matter before presuming to speak about it.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Sin is disorder to which the will consents.

No, you are not being charitable.
You are claiming that you are so smart and obviously right that the only way someone could disagree with you is if their ignorant, evil, or simply a liar.
That is the height of arrogance.

I am claiming that the truth as revealed by reason and defended by the Church established by God and protected by Him from error is so obviously right that the only people I have ever met who have claimed to dissent from it have been ignoramuses (the vast majority of them), liars, and degenerates.

Another arrogant assumption.
How could you possibly know what Geofarmer1 has or hasn’t learned about Natural Law prior to this?

Because the claim that “The concept of natural law only applies if you believe in a creator” is false, and anyone who had an ACTUAL familiarity with natural law would know this.

You know how I know this? Because I adhered to natural law BEFORE I believed in a creator – when I was still an agnostic, in fact.

It is not “arrogance” to point out that someone who voices OBVIOUS misconceptions about natural law MUST be doing so because he DOESN’T know what he’s talking about.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
LOL

Oh this is going be fun…

Based on what exactly?
You have certainly not impressed me with your clever use of language in this thread.
I could summarize the basic pattern in three words.

1. Deny
2. Insult
3. Deny

There’s not much left to do when my opponents are solipsists, degenerates, illiterates, and morons.

Read the Catechism, foolish boy. And familiarize yourself with the subject matter before presuming to speak about it.
.

Personal insults already?

Must be Tuesday

You are still not demonstrating that intelligence you bragged about.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What are the Seven Deadly Sins but thoughts and feelings?
They are certainly not actions in of themselves.

This argument is not a good example of that intelligence you’re bragging about.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.[/INDENT]

Sin is disorder to which the will consents.

.

You make me laugh sw85

Do you have any idea how many threads there are* just on this forum* about people struggling with feelings of Lust, Envy, etc.
These people **do not consent **to these feelings but actively fight against their natural human impulses.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
No, you are not being charitable.
You are claiming that you are so smart and obviously right that the only way someone could disagree with you is if their ignorant, evil, or simply a liar.
That is the height of arrogance.

I am claiming that the truth as revealed by reason and defended by the Church established by God and protected by Him from error is so obviously right that the only people I have ever met who have claimed to dissent from it have been ignoramuses (the vast majority of them), liars, and degenerates.

Then you really need to get out more
Not even the the Catholic Church itself claims that everyone who disagrees with it is evil or stupid.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because the claim that “The concept of natural law only applies if you believe in a creator” is false, and anyone who had an ACTUAL familiarity with natural law would know this.

You know how I know this? Because I adhered to natural law BEFORE I believed in a creator – when I was still an agnostic, in fact.

It is not “arrogance” to point out that someone who voices OBVIOUS misconceptions about natural law MUST be doing so because he DOESN’T know what he’s talking about.

Its worth noting that you have not actually put forth a detailed explanation of what you personally think Natural Law is (at least in this thread).
Is that because you can’t, or simply because you see no need to explain yourself when criticizing others?

 

[sw85]

Personal insults already?

Must be Tuesday

You are still not demonstrating that intelligence you bragged about.

It’s hard to demonstrate intelligence in response to vacuity.

Do you have any idea how many threads there are* just on this forum* about people struggling with feelings of Lust, Envy, etc.
These people **do not consent **to these feelings but actively fight against their natural human impulses.

And those people ARE NOT GUILTY OF SIN.

Like the kids say: duh!

Then you really need to get out more
Not even the the Catholic Church itself claims that everyone who disagrees with it is evil or stupid.

Nope. It recognizes that most people who don’t accept it do so out of ignorance, not malice – which is precisely what I’m saying.

Its worth noting that you have not actually put forth a detailed explanation of what you personally think Natural Law is (at least in this thread).
Is that because you can’t, or simply because you see no need to explain yourself when criticizing others?

Duh. Because “natural law is false” is an assertion, not an argument – there is nothing there to respond to.

Since you’ve asked, I posted an extremely reductive defense of natural law principles here. The moral question at issue there was man’s duty to worship God, not to avoid using contraception, but the argument is essentially the same: contraception is contrary to the end of man’s sexual faculty just as refusal to worship God is contrary to the end of man’s reason.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Personal insults already?

Must be Tuesday

You are still not demonstrating that intelligence you bragged about.

It’s hard to demonstrate intelligence in response to vacuity.

.

True, but I try to respond intelligently to your posts nevertheless

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Duh. Because “natural law is false” is an assertion, not an argument – there is nothing there to respond to.

Since you’ve asked, I posted an extremely reductive defense of natural law principles here. The moral question at issue there was man’s duty to worship God, not to avoid using contraception, but the argument is essentially the same: contraception is contrary to the end of man’s sexual faculty just as refusal to worship God is contrary to the end of man’s reason.

More links…

Do you have any decent arguments of your own to put forth, or can you just cite the work of others while questioning the intelligence and intentions of your fellow posters?

 

[The_Lonely_One]

You’re absolutely right.
What can I add ?
God bless.

 

[sw85]

More links…

Do you have any decent arguments of your own to put forth, or can you just cite the work of others while questioning the intelligence and intentions of your fellow posters?

Dude, it’s a link to a defense I WROTE.

What, do you want me to copy it for you???