J
jamesrussell49
Guest
You got it. The real solution to too many calories is to eat less, not take absorptive pills or mutilate you fat deposits with liposuction.
- Status
You got it. The real solution to too many calories is to eat less, not take absorptive pills or mutilate you fat deposits with liposuction.
N
Nate13
Guest
You got it. The real solution to too many calories is to eat less, not take absorptive pills or mutilate you fat deposits with liposuction.
Go Natural Law!.. wait what we were talking about again…
L
LaSainte
Guest
But then why is slavery advocated in the Bible? It seems like we only follow natural law some of the time.
L
LaSainte
Guest
I only meant that instead of being some divine law given to us by God, a lot of these things are just survival instinct. Many of them of course coincide with God’s will, but some of these things (like the purpose of eating and sex) don’t seem like immutable truths that must be done a certain way every time no matter what.Haha alright I agree. Following natural law would help propagate the species. You cannot say this is the purpose of natural law except out of correlation however. Life is precious to God though, so is it any surprise that he instilled within us a need to protect it and cherish it? The greater purpose of natural law though is to help us love God and love our neighbor as our self.
The points that need to hit home though are that:
Anyways what point are you trying to make by saying natural law is about propagating the species? I assumed you were moving towards trying some sort of prove of how its not important so I tried to address that before you got there, if that’s where you were going
- God designed us.
- Being designed implies a purpose.
- We cannot go against this purpose unless told to explicitly by God, since the purpose itself was put there by God originally. No man can render it apart just like no man can tear a man and a woman apart that God has put together into one flesh.
N
Nate13
Guest
-Natural law only falls underneath a direct command from God to do otherwise.
I’d also ask who you are referring to as advocating slavery? The “Israelite’s did it!” is not a great case for saying slavery was advocated. The Israelite’s did a lot of things that God didn’t like and he did not punish them directly for all of them i.e divorce, polygamy, etc…
Also, withdrawal is advocated as being punished by death from God in the Bible…
In summary whats your point? Just because something is natural law doesn’t mean it cannot be broken just as easily as the Israelite’s broke every other law God gave them.
S
sw85
Guest
As I said above, God alone can issue exemptions from most of natural law.
Slavery does not generally arise from natural law but it need not conflict with it. Technology doesn’t arise from natural law, either, but nobody imagines that there is a necessary and inherent conflict of technology with natural law (though it certainly facilitates such conflicts). What is important is that natural law governs everything, including the relations of slaves to slavemasters.
Survival instinct is not something distinct from natural law. It itself arises from it.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
To what extent the lower natural law is supposed to limit the higher God’s law?
Where is God? Who is God?
The Church is His bride. Right?
All of us are cells of the Church’s body. You love God when you love others. When you hug your spouse you hug God as well.
The altruistic self-giving marital act is the biggest intimate sign of Love to many married couples. There is nothing bigger to them. That’s how they feel and show Love of God. They live and feel it that way.
To keep the lower natural law (to be procreative) in place people have to limit this physical manifestation of their Love. In some case complete abstinence is required. They feel as being separated from the Love. It’s like their life support has been cut.
There are cases where marriages suffer and break up over this.
Is it the right price?
S
sw85
Guest
No. We are not pantheists.
The best expression of love for God is subservience to His will, as expressed (a) in his positive commandments and (b) in the natures which He has ordained for us.
You are speaking solely of eros, which is at best a secondary concern of the Church’s. The love of which they speak and with which they are concerned is agape.
N
Nate13
Guest
You shouldn’t think of natural law as preventing you from using things in the manner most appropriate in your judgement. Natural law has more to do with using human beings for a purpose other than what they were designed for. This is because human beings were put in dominion over all of creation. Thus any crime against creation is really a crime against ourselves.
It appears what your trying to argue is that it is not apparent to you that the purpose of sex is to always be both unitive and procreative all the time. I believe you see that both purposes fit, but you don’t see why they must always be together. I would completely agree with you on this point and so does God. If he didn’t he would have created a woman to be fertile 100% of the time. Is it not apparent that when a woman is fertile she is meant to be fertile? Is not the purpose in the design apparent? Making every act unitive and both procreative simply follows from acknowledging the inherent purpose in the act.
The scripture backing for the idea that every act must be procreative and unitive is Gen 2:24 and the idea of the “two becoming one flesh”. In the Hebrew the word for flesh can make the phrase mean: one union between the two, literally “one genital”, or more obviously it can be in reference to the “one flesh” child that is born out of that union. Taken in the context of the book of Genesis, considering the author’s style, as well as how the ancient Semite would have read it we can ascertain that the correct answer to what is meant by “one flesh” isn’t any one of these meanings individually but all of them taken together as one. John Paul II talked about this himself. So not only do you have a reason to believe they go together from natural law, but also from the Bible.
Also, I appreciate your part in allowing this to be an actual discussion the last few pages. Its refreshing.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Are you saying that agape and eros are mutually exclusive?
N
Nate13
Guest
No he is saying that love cannot be eros if it isn’t agape.
L
LaSainte
Guest
Didn’t Paul say that if you’re a slave you must obey your master? Sounds like advocating slavery to me.
N
Nate13
Guest
You can find a thread on the slavery that was being referred to in the Bible to get a greater understanding of this. From my small understanding, the slavery referred to in the Bible was more like indentured servitude. Children also have to obey their parents, and we all have to obey God. Padre Pio had to obey his superior. Being told to obey does not make one less than human. We both know where Paul was coming from and he definitely never advocated that some people were of more value in God’s eyes than others or more human than others.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
Having said that, conscience puts it up side down…
B
Bookcat
Guest
Conscience is…catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32755
S
sw85
Guest
If you are saying eros can be achieved only through sex, then yes.
Of course even a desire for total self-giving and communion with another is sufficient to qualify as eros – hence sexual frustration does not qualify as a lack of any love.
N
Nate13
Guest
I believe he was asking if you thought eros and agape could not be present at the same time. I.e if its eros its not agape, and if its agape its not eros…
V
VonDerTann
Guest
This goes to SW85.
The Supreme Court, when they hold oral arguments on cases, often pepper the lawyers with questions…but they’re not really asking the lawyers questions; they are instead using the ‘question and answer’ process to speak indirectly to their fellow judges.
Thus, although I’m sending this to you, what I’m really doing is also communicating with lurkers and others who may be looking on and trying to form their own opinions.
Now, some thoughts:
Catholicism is not a religion for those with a degree in philosophy (although I understand all of the references you’ve made), nor should it require resort to arguments many people do not understand. It’s a religion which can be boiled down to one word: ** LOVE. Love everyone. Love sinners. Love those who disagree with you. Love the foolish; those who struggle with conscience; those who hate the Church; Love EVERYONE**. All your “big words” are 100% meaningless if you miss the message of Christianity…
B. …and miss it you clearly do.
Given the role of LOVE in our faith, do you really, REALLY believe that your position does justice to Jesus’ message of love?
Personally, I think you’re making fools of Catholics. Lurkers may be mislead into thinking you are indicative of the Church’s members. You are not; most Church members are basically good people who try to live their lives in a basic Christian way, as well they should.
OTOH, you’ve expressed unhappiness – even disgust – at those who disagree with you. You’ve stated what you consider is your right to “rebuke harshly” “obstinate and unrepentant sinners,” as if merely disagreeing with the Church makes one an “obstinate and unrepentant sinner.” It does NOT: See, i.e., Galileo, who the Church tried to silence, threaten as a heretic, dissenter, etc., for years, until they later acknowledged that he was correct. You’ve castigated what you view as “protestantism” and suggested that dissenters should leave; called certain references (if memory serves) in the CCC “obnoxious;” and demanded that people be “slaves for Christ,” as if that it a good thing. You’ve commented on how people ought to argue (as if this is a debating society, where we score ‘points.’
Yet I see nothing in the way of charity coming from your posts – toward those who struggle; those who disagree; those who dissent (whether for good or bad reasons), or, in short, anyone else who does not agree with you 100%.
Now, given Jesus’ directives that we are to love others…do you think you’re doing that?
Look, I’m actually trying to be charitable. I just see very little charity coming from YOU. I’d ask you to consider exactly why you are even here at all, and what exactly you wish to accomplish be “doing what you’re doing,” and why it seems so important that you be right in all your “arguments.” It looks to me, in all candor, that you are awfully angry, which is actually unfortunate, because nothing I’ve seen is really all that much getting so worked up over.
Charitably,
-VdT
The Supreme Court, when they hold oral arguments on cases, often pepper the lawyers with questions…but they’re not really asking the lawyers questions; they are instead using the ‘question and answer’ process to speak indirectly to their fellow judges.
Thus, although I’m sending this to you, what I’m really doing is also communicating with lurkers and others who may be looking on and trying to form their own opinions.
Now, some thoughts:
- As to conscience: You keep rehashing that conscience must, by necessity, yield to the Church, and that essentially what the Church says we are bound to obey. You’ve described that we must be “slaves” to Christ. You are 180 degrees wrong. As the Church itself recognized in Vatican II, the conscience controls, and the Church cannot and does not force anyone to act in violation thereof:
- Now, some thoughts on how you advocate your position.
Catholicism is not a religion for those with a degree in philosophy (although I understand all of the references you’ve made), nor should it require resort to arguments many people do not understand. It’s a religion which can be boiled down to one word: ** LOVE. Love everyone. Love sinners. Love those who disagree with you. Love the foolish; those who struggle with conscience; those who hate the Church; Love EVERYONE**. All your “big words” are 100% meaningless if you miss the message of Christianity…
B. …and miss it you clearly do.
Given the role of LOVE in our faith, do you really, REALLY believe that your position does justice to Jesus’ message of love?
Personally, I think you’re making fools of Catholics. Lurkers may be mislead into thinking you are indicative of the Church’s members. You are not; most Church members are basically good people who try to live their lives in a basic Christian way, as well they should.
OTOH, you’ve expressed unhappiness – even disgust – at those who disagree with you. You’ve stated what you consider is your right to “rebuke harshly” “obstinate and unrepentant sinners,” as if merely disagreeing with the Church makes one an “obstinate and unrepentant sinner.” It does NOT: See, i.e., Galileo, who the Church tried to silence, threaten as a heretic, dissenter, etc., for years, until they later acknowledged that he was correct. You’ve castigated what you view as “protestantism” and suggested that dissenters should leave; called certain references (if memory serves) in the CCC “obnoxious;” and demanded that people be “slaves for Christ,” as if that it a good thing. You’ve commented on how people ought to argue (as if this is a debating society, where we score ‘points.’
Yet I see nothing in the way of charity coming from your posts – toward those who struggle; those who disagree; those who dissent (whether for good or bad reasons), or, in short, anyone else who does not agree with you 100%.
Now, given Jesus’ directives that we are to love others…do you think you’re doing that?
Look, I’m actually trying to be charitable. I just see very little charity coming from YOU. I’d ask you to consider exactly why you are even here at all, and what exactly you wish to accomplish be “doing what you’re doing,” and why it seems so important that you be right in all your “arguments.” It looks to me, in all candor, that you are awfully angry, which is actually unfortunate, because nothing I’ve seen is really all that much getting so worked up over.
Charitably,
-VdT
L
LaSainte
Guest
I guess I just never thought the biblical arguments were that compelling. Two becoming one flesh-o.k. that makes sense, but I still don’t see how that can be read as “semen in vagina, every time”. The same with the Onan story. That just doesn’t seem so much lIke it is condemning the act for all time as much as in his particular case.
I see much more evidence for not wearing clothes of 2 different fabrics, or for forbidding circumcision than I do for this. Of course, I understand that the Church is the interpreter of the Bible, but as a literature student, I cannot for the life of me see where they get this stuff. I can’t think of anyone without an agenda who would interpret these passages that way.
As far as natural law goes, I’ll admit I’m no philosopher, but it seems that sometimes it applies and other times it doesn’t. For example, according to natural law, shouldn’t it be a sin not to breastfeed your child? The breasts have one main function:to nourish our young. Breast milk contains antibodies and immunities that cannot be reproduced in formula. It is documented that breast fed children are healthier throughout childhood. And yet, it is perfectly within my right to completely ignore that function, run out and get breast implants that may destroy my ability to breast feed my baby, and voluntarily choose NOT to give my child the best start in life just because I feel like it. Doesn’t this go against the natural law? Why is it not a sin?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
That the well informed conscience rules should have been clear to him since page five of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8601650&postcount=74
- Status