To assert what?Pick one - either it is ‘gaga lala nonsense’ to assert that it is possible (which I have not done, but the Catholic Church does) or it is not.
[SIGN]http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12008663&postcount=220[/SIGN]
Amen!
I’ve heard this turn of phrase before, but biologically speaking, this simply does not occur except perhaps as a sort of romanticized abstraction about lovemaking. An emission of semen in a vagina does not make two people become one. It just can’t - whether fertilization does or does not occur or if it’s even possible for any given pair.
That it is possible for a woman to conceive without having sex.
So you, not I, were asserting “gaga lala nonsense”!
So no, you cannot show where I said what you claim.
No need to search. It is an interesting book, and we’ve already seen that I know it better than you.Oh, how I love having non-believers searching the Scriptures!
I have never asserted that it’s impossible for a woman to conceive without having sex.That it is possible for a woman to conceive without having sex.
I am happy to see you deny that the Bible ever makes any mention of Joseph and Mary never having sex.So no, you cannot show where I said what you claim.
Fair enough. Perhaps you do.No need to search. It is an interesting book, and we’ve already seen that I know it better than you.
nopeand this:
And you responded:
So it appears that you were saying that Joseph and Mary never had sex, and that when one reads the Bible one would see that.So Joseph and Mary were not married according to you?
Gosh, almost as though they’ve read the Bible!
Yep, which is why it pretty much doesn’t make sense when you use biological terms or biological phrasing to describe something that cannot actually be observed. Rape can certainly be ordered to creating a third life as well, but I wouldn’t phrase that as two becoming one either biologically or ontologically.
Because, mjwise, the physical union reflects the ontological one.
Absolutely incorrect.
You are absolutely correct.
Except that the appearance of physical union may be misleading or false as it pertains to an ontological union.
Assuming no contraception is used and the act climaxes with coitus, I disagree - rape can be ordered to the creation of life. It’s obviously defective in terms of consent, but it’s still ordered to creation of life.
Which is precisely why the biological-sounding “two becomes one” phrasing tends to throw people off.
Absolutely correct.
Only in the same way that swinging a bat towards someone’s head is ordered towards playing baseball.
I suppose, then, that you ought to have a talk with good old Jesus and tell him that?
Now you know that person had in fact already answered your question.
I disagree. It can still be ordered to life, unless being “ordered to life” has been defined in some very unintuitive way. I’m not sure there’s a baseball analogy to explain it.
Christ was obviously using creation imagery (e.g. Genesis 2:24). I will take what you said and what Christ said in the same light I take Genesis 1 and 2.I suppose, then, that you ought to have a talk with good old Jesus and tell him that?
Logical mistake. Catholics say that sex should be ordered to giving life; they do not say that all things ordered to giving life are permissible.
Let’s leave non-Jewish couples out of this, shall we? I see no reason for particularizing the discussion in that direction.
And sex unions can never do this. No even as a shot on goal or a swing and a miss.
Well, the two do become one genetically, in the newly formed human being, which, I suppose, counts as “biological,” no?
You cited an article from a web-based bottom-tier journal. (If what I’m saying sounds like a foreign language then I’ll assume you’re not actually a “doctor”).
I didn’t say your web-based essay was about same-sex parenting. Please pay attention.
Nor did I say that “homosexuality damages civilization.” What I ***did ***say was that **if you’re serious about redefining norms" – which apparently you are – then please cite a study – since you’re keen on citing studies – from a top-tier journal that utilizes a reputable methodology (i.e, large, random, and representative sample observed longitudinally) demonstrating the equality of same-sex parenting.The point, of course, is that while (some) Catholics try to assert that homosexuality damages civilisation, there is no evidence for this - and greater evidence that Catholicism does.
Yep. Which goes back to why I started all this and said the “two becomes one to make three” phrasing isn’t great in the first place. It mixes biology and ontology when they don’t necessarily coincide.
It’s not “unintuitive” to frame “ordered to life” as the coordination of a man and woman toward procreation. When a man rapes a woman, that’s not coordination – that’s abuse. Just like you wouldn’t define waterboarding as practicing good hygiene, even though it does have some hygienic properties.
Well, no. The “two” being referred to are human persons that each have a physical and spiritual dimension (among others,) so the “two” cannot become one without becoming “one” in all the dimensions that make a human being, a human being.