"Ask the materialist" continued on sexuality

[Sarpedon]

First my post, then Ateista’s response, then my response to Ateista

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Okay. I’m sure you agree that both are bad. Do you think he is responsible for either of them? Both? Nothing?

Of coruse I agree that both are wrong. What I deny that they are equal. Yes, the one who intends to commit murders is responsible for his decision.

And likewise a pope who intends to teach heresy is responsible for his decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
3. Why? It seems intuitively obvious to me that bad things affect other people. If you murder someone, you kill that person, emotionally scar his relatives, perhaps encourage someone else to do it, etc. On the other hand, even the smallest nice thing you do for a neighbor affects him for the better. I can’t understand how even an atheist can deny this.

But that is not what you said. You said that a private behavior in one’s own bedroom is a “sin” and as such in drags down the “whole humanity”. Not the same thing at all!

Let’s take the case of an action done by yourself, with the assurance that no one can learn of it. You still affect humanity, because by setting yourself against God you will now find it harder (since you will not be privy to some or all graces) to lead a moral life and help people spiritually.

Of course, you will not accept this because of your atheism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
God wants all of us to be in heaven, but He wants our love. Love can only exist when we are free. Therefore, He allows the possibility of being rejected in order to make this love possible.

Love does not come “free”, it has to be deserved . And this is precisely where God’s actions - or actually the lack of them - come into the picture. Those minor things that a “Goood Shephard” is supposed to do… look after his flock, and actually help them in the time of need. Like sending a bit of rain.

Anyone who has raised children knows that it is not healthy to give them everything they desire, even if it is intrinsically good. God keeps the big picture in mind, and the fact that earth is merely a starting point for life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
I find that the guidelines are clear. Have you experienced otherwise?

The “guidelines” are anything, but clear. A set of clear guidelines needs no interpretation.

Examples please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Remember, old men do not make the decisions. God reveals them to us.

No, he sure did not. If you argue that the Bible is the word of God, you are in a tough position, because you have to deny all the scientific absurdities incorporated in it. Since you are not a fundamentalist, you have to explain how could the text of God’s word be “contaminated” with such absurdities. Not an easy position.

First off, Catholics can believe in evolution. Most of the “absurdities” result from misunderstanding the context of the particular book or passage. For example, when locusts are referred to as having four legs you have to keep in mind that the purpose of the passage is not to declare how many legs locusts have. It doesn’t disprove the idea the writer is trying to convey.

 

[Sarpedon]

Originally Posted by Sarpedon
It’s pleasurable because its good. Sex is created by God and therefore holy in of itself. As with anything, abusing something that is good is bad. Eating is good, fun, and holy, but it is bad if taken to extremes. The case with sex is similar.

But we do not talk about about “over-sexed”.

Are you familiar with the term “sl_t”?

We talk about something that is forbidden by the Church, but - in and by itself - is harmless. As a matter of fact to have “too much” sex - akin to overeating - if physiologically impossible - for males.

Maybe physiologically, but what about psychologically? Due to the strong bond that sex causes to form, constant changing of sexual partners can damage the ability of a person to bond and thus form healthy relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Fair enough. I’m fairly sure that the short answer to why contraception is bad is that it interferes with the way God has designed sex to work.

You contradict yourself when later on you accept that the procreative aspect of sex is not the only aspect of it.

Um, how? Contraception messes up both aspects, because it closes off the possibility for life and tells the other person that they are to be used merely for pleasure. This is a deep topic and this is an incomplete explanation, but it goes along these lines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Who is doing the redefining? I have 2,000 years of Catholic theology behind me.

Then you have 2000 years of incorrect definition on your hands.

Look, I am not going to trust some random internet person who is not really supporting his/her statements over the likes of Aquinas and Augustine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
If you have to separate, then it is moral to do so. In fact, to do otherwise could be immoral if it gives scandal or harms the children or yourself. However, the marriage covenant still binds, so you cannot remarry. If you dissolve the meaning of the covenant then the very basis for marriage disintergrates.

Marriage is a legal term not a religious one.

Well, we disagree

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Because it is still an expression of love and sanctification for the spouses.

Use the word “partners” and we shall be closer to mutual understaning.

I’m not aiming for mutual understanding, rather support of Catholic doctrine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Do you have any empirical evidence that men don’t bond to a specific partner?

What kind of evidence are you looking for? Many males seek out multiple relationships. Biologically it is to the benefit of the species to have as lage a gene-pool as possible.

Then why do men feel pain in a breakup or divorce?

I will have a lot of school coming up so my participation in this thread will be sporadic.

 

[ateista]

Just a very short answer for now. I read it, and will respond tomorrow in detail.

 

[ateista]

And likewise a pope who intends to teach heresy is responsible for his decision.

A decision which is not carried out is **not **the same as a decision which is carried out. That was the point.

Let’s take the case of an action done by yourself, with the assurance that no one can learn of it. You still affect humanity, because by setting yourself against God you will now find it harder (since you will not be privy to some or all graces) to lead a moral life and help people spiritually.

Of course, you will not accept this because of your atheism.

So why bring it up? And besides: “harder” is not the same as impossible. You categorically said that anything we do will affect the whole humanity - and that is absurd.

Anyone who has raised children knows that it is not healthy to give them everything they desire, even if it is intrinsically good. God keeps the big picture in mind, and the fact that earth is merely a starting point for life.

Not a good argument. I did not ask for “everything”, I asked why a little rain is not sent to the ones whose survival depends on it. I did not ask for “manna” to come down. If this “segment” of existence does not “really” count - as you say - then why is it here?

First off, Catholics can believe in evolution. Most of the “absurdities” result from misunderstanding the context of the particular book or passage. For example, when locusts are referred to as having four legs you have to keep in mind that the purpose of the passage is not to declare how many legs locusts have. It doesn’t disprove the idea the writer is trying to convey.

I am not talking about evolution. I was talking about the scientific absurdities which permeate the whole Bible. You say that the text is “essentially” correct, but may be incorrect in “irrelevant” details? That is not an excuse. A text which is supposed to be divinely “inspired” (whatever that means) cannot and should not have even minor errors, because it casts doubt on its alleged origin.

 

[ateista]

Are you familiar with the term “sl_t”?

I don’t know. Is a “u” missing?

Maybe physiologically, but what about psychologically? Due to the strong bond that sex causes to form, constant changing of sexual partners can damage the ability of a person to bond and thus form healthy relationships.

Yes it can, but not necessarily. So what?

Um, how? Contraception messes up both aspects, because it closes off the possibility for life and tells the other person that they are to be used merely for pleasure. This is a deep topic and this is an incomplete explanation, but it goes along these lines.

Oh, come on. “Used”? “Merely”? Two people concentrate on each other’s pleasure, and do not want to be bothered by the chance of a pregnancy?

Look, I am not going to trust some random internet person who is not really supporting his/her statements over the likes of Aquinas and Augustine.

You are not required.

Well, we disagree

Ok.

I’m not aiming for mutual understanding, rather support of Catholic doctrine.

The support is not very successful.

Then why do men feel pain in a breakup or divorce?

Sometimes they feel liberated. And not just men, women, too.

I will have a lot of school coming up so my participation in this thread will be sporadic.

Good luck to you. Don’t neglect your studies. They are much more important.

 

[Sarpedon]

A decision which is not carried out is **not **the same as a decision which is carried out. That was the point.

Can you show me a mental difference between a person who has fully commited to doing an evil action but has not yet done it and someone who is doing it or has done it without a change of heart?

So why bring it up? And besides: “harder” is not the same as impossible. You categorically said that anything we do will affect the whole humanity - and that is absurd.

I’ll ask my teacher about it.

Not a good argument. I did not ask for “everything”, I asked why a little rain is not sent to the ones whose survival depends on it. I did not ask for “manna” to come down. If this “segment” of existence does not “really” count - as you say - then why is it here?

It’s precisely because this segment does count that God doesn’t give us everything we desire. The reason we don’t give a child everything he wants is that his childhood influences (but not determines) the rest of his life. His childhood does matter.

I am not talking about evolution. I was talking about the scientific absurdities which permeate the whole Bible. You say that the text is “essentially” correct, but may be incorrect in “irrelevant” details? That is not an excuse. A text which is supposed to be divinely “inspired” (whatever that means) cannot and should not have even minor errors, because it casts doubt on its alleged origin.

The Bible is written by humans under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus, it remain’s the author’s work (unlike the Koran, which is dictated).

Small, irrelevant details do not mean that a book is not inspired. Depending on the context of the book, certain parts are meant to convey spiritual truth rather than scientific accuracy. I don’t think this is that unreasonable. It only “casts doubts on its alleged origin” if you don’t know how to interpret the Bible, which is a major problem for protestants. But not for the Church.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don’t know. Is a “u” missing?

Yes.

Here’s another example- sexual addiction

Yes it can, but not necessarily. So what?

So what! You just said that sex is harmless. Now you have admitted that it can be harmful.

You say that changing sexual partners does not necessaily entail damage. Can you provide an example of this? Keep in mind that bonding is regulated by hormones to a large extent.

Oh, come on. “Used”? “Merely”? Two people concentrate on each other’s pleasure, and do not want to be bothered by the chance of a pregnancy?

Humanae Vitae provides a much more detailed explanation than I can:

newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm

I can’t help but notice that you said “bothered” by pregnancy. Does this not sound a little bit selfish to you? You don’t want to be bothered by new life and a new immortal soul because you want to concentrate on pleasure?

Sometimes they feel liberated. And not just men, women, too.

It seems to me that most people feel some degree of sadness, even if there are “glad” to be “liberated”.

 

[Sarpedon]

A decision which is not carried out is **not **the same as a decision which is carried out. That was the point.

Here’s an example of what I’m trying to say:

Imagine a person decided to convert to Catholicism. On the drive to his baptism, he is killed in a car crash. For adults, baptism is necessary for salvation. Of course, the man never had his ceremony performed.

Is fair for this man to be damned to hell? I’m sure you’ll say no, and the Catholic Church agrees with you. We believe in “baptism by desire”, which is when someone who desires baptism but is prevented from having the outward sign of the sacrament due to reasons outside of his control, recieves it due to his intention.

Is this reasonable? If so, we can create a parallel example about sin.

Suppose someone decides, in his right mind (he is not insane or anything) to commit murder. He makes a free decision to spite God and hate his fellow man by taking a life. He is absolutely intent on carrying out the action, with the only thing standing between now and the action being completed is logistics. When he arrives at the place where he will shoot, he is shot by a policeman in defense of the victim.

Is this person culpable for sin?

The Catholic Church says yes, using the same justification that it does for baptism of desire (in this case “sin by desire”).