From consent to morality

[Spock]

In a way it is his own business, he is responsible for his own actions. But this does not refute that he can commit immoral actions against himself.

Immoral, in whose eyes?

You are confusing my position in a number of ways. First, I am not saying that pleasure seeking without the intent to procreate is necessarily wrong.

It sure seemed so. So do you consider active contraception fine?

While I agree that it is possible in this case to pursue pleasure seeking and procreation separately (ie. contraceptive intercourse or in vitro fertilization), it is not moral.

Moral, in whose eyes? You see, you are very cautious not to bring in religion explicitly, but these remarks of your reek of the religious background. I have no problem with it, but don’t think that you and your argument are “free” of promoting “catholic morality”.

It is true that those functions you list are “relatively independent”. I agree and don’t really have a problem with that. But actively going against a inherent function is destructive.

Does it cause blindness?

Contraceptive intercourse goes against the action’s innate potential for new life. It’s as simple as that.

Yes, it does. So?

Having the 3 functions be relatively independent doesn’t matter… it’s the active contradiction of the function that matters and is destructive.

The independence does matter. And the “destructive” part only exists in your eyes.

First and foremost objectifying others as a means of self-gratification is wrong.

There is no “objectifying” - on the contrary. Both parties agree that their gratification will not be simultaneous.

I only claim that secondarily and sometimes indirectly (though perhaps also directly), when someone hurts themselves they are affecting me. Not because my feelings are hurt but because of the objective negative effects of their actions.

But saying that a specific action is against natural law is very specific. It means that it hurts those who engage in it.

Like masturbation will cause blindness?

Only secondarily was it my claim that others are affected. When one engages in selfish behavior it starts to make them a selfish person. And the acts committed by a selfish person will often have consequences against others.

It is not selfish to concentrate on your partner. It is very unselfish. Sometimes one of the partners is too tired to go “all the way”, but not too tired to show the love by satisfying the other one. That is unselfish, and so you should applaud their unselfishness.

How it hurts me? At least one of the myriad of ways it hurts me is by promoting a culture of apparent “consequence-free” sex. That waiting until marriage to give yourself completely to the other person is nonsensical and even contemptible. “Are you somehow better than the rest of us?” So alienation is one way I am being affected.
It is also helping to destroy the country I live in and many others by promoting selfishness above responsibility. It contributes, however much, to a lack of stable marriages, and therefore, the health of the country.

At last something specific! So it changes your environment somewhat, in a manner which offends you. The rest is either incorrect or nebulous. The type of sex we talk about promotes unselfishness, not the opposite - which shreds your arguments into nothingness. Marriages in general are neither stable nor volatile. The country will survive with more divorces. Effectively all your “harm” boils down to: “you don’t like those changes”. Which is not harm.

 

[Shike]

The problem is fundamental. Your usage of freedom linked to the “morality” of the act is vacuous. First, because there is no reason to make such a distinction, and second, because what is “moral” is not absolute. We have no common ground in the usage of even such simple words.

There is no difference. It is all preference based, when it comes to the individual.

So freedom is not good? Don’t bother answering because the bigger underlying issue for you is that you don’t see how any one human being’s character can objectively be better than another.

Isn’t someone who lies, cheats, steals, murders, and rapes have a character that is objectively worse than someone who loves his neighbor as himself?

I find the practice of religion despicable, I find the worshipping of God dumb and nonsensical.

If that is the case then it makes all your talk about going to St. Peter’s in Rome and praying a rosary seem silly. But who knows, I am not God.

He certainly can. He did. He told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which is ordering murder.

Your exegesis is flawed. One of the points of the story was to teach how God deserves to be put first in our hierarchy of goods, not that God wants us to murder our sons. Did you get to the part where the angel told him not to sacrifice his son? I think you missed the point. Murder is never good.

You are providing proof that sola scriptura and the protestant reformation was a very bad idea.

IF God would order you to commit rape, you would do it, because it would be “moral”.

Don’t put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself. I find the rest of your exegesis silly. Did you get this from Dawkins?

Oh yes, there is. Millions of Catholics disagree with the stance of contraception, abortion, gay marriage, etc… which shows that the need for an official list is paramount.

No, all that is needed is for priests to preach the doctrines of the church faithfully and for the people in the pews to wake up and figure out if they want to be Catholic or not. For many, it’s too much a cultural thing rather than a religion.

 

[Shike]

Moral, in whose eyes? You see, you are very cautious not to bring in religion explicitly, but these remarks of your reek of the religious background. I have no problem with it, but don’t think that you and your argument are “free” of promoting “catholic morality”.

Talk about morality doesn’t depend on religion. I am all in favor of promoting Catholic morality, but a large part of Catholic morality is just normal morality that can be known by reason.

Does it cause blindness?

Is blindness the only thing that can go wrong with an individual?
Look at it this way. If we contradict the function of any of our other organs, bad things happen. What makes intercourse so special in this regard to be above any negative consequences?

There is no “objectifying” - on the contrary. Both parties agree that their gratification will not be simultaneous.

And both parties can agree to drive a knife into each others’ hearts. So what. Consent doesn’t make something like that good.

I am not a believer in the magical power of consent.

It is not selfish to concentrate on your partner. It is very unselfish.

I agree.

The concentration on your partner was never at issue. It’s the other issues that make the act selfish: like outside the covenant of marriage and using artificial contraception.

The type of sex we talk about promotes unselfishness, not the opposite - which shreds your arguments into nothingness.

There is no inherent problem with concentrating on the other, the problem is rather when intercourse is outside of marriage and/or using artificial contraception.

So my arguments still stand.

Marriages in general are neither stable nor volatile. The country will survive with more divorces.

How many more divorces? If you don’t have a stable family unit you do not have a stable society. Simple as that.

 

[Spock]

So freedom is not good? Don’t bother answering because the bigger underlying issue for you is that you don’t see how any one human being’s character can objectively be better than another.

Freedom is neither good nor bad. Just like that hammer we talked about.

If that is the case then it makes all your talk about going to St. Peter’s in Rome and praying a rosary seem silly.

Sure. But I folllowed the advice to see if it helps. I like the principle: “let’s leave no stones unturned”.

Did you get to the part where the angel told him not to sacrifice his son? I think you missed the point. Murder is never good.

I did not miss it. But the fact is that God did order it, and Abraham was about to do it. And God praised his faith and obedience.

You are providing proof that sola scriptura and the protestant reformation was a very bad idea.

My translation of this: “if the bible is inconvenient, let’s pretend it is not there, or let’s explain it away”. The OT is filled with moral atrocities (as defined by the Chtsitian and Catholic morality) ordered or committed by God. You can’t just sweep it under the rug by saying “sola scriptura”. Well, you can try, but no one will accept it.

No, all that is needed is for priests to preach the doctrines of the church faithfully and for the people in the pews to wake up and figure out if they want to be Catholic or not. For many, it’s too much a cultural thing rather than a religion.

They consider themselves catholic, but not the super-orthodox type.

Talk about morality doesn’t depend on religion. I am all in favor of promoting Catholic morality, but a large part of Catholic morality is just normal morality that can be known by reason.

A large part, yes. But other parts most certainly not. And the part dealing with sexuality are definitely not.

Is blindness the only thing that can go wrong with an individual?

Well, do they go deaf? Is there any physical illness that is caused by “illicit” sex? Do they go crazy?

Look at it this way. If we contradict the function of any of our other organs, bad things happen. What makes intercourse so special in this regard to be above any negative consequences?

The point is that pure pleasure seeking does NOT contradict anything. It is part of the functionality. It does go against some part - namely procreation, but it is only some Christians and some Catholics who assert that the procreative part is the most important functionality. And their argument has always been religion based.

And both parties can agree to drive a knife into each others’ hearts. So what. Consent doesn’t make something like that good.

If that is their decision, it is their business.

The concentration on your partner was never at issue. It’s the other issues that make the act selfish: like outside the covenant of marriage and using artificial contraception.

But it certainly is. You forgot about mutual oral or hand stimulation. Pure pleasure seeking in the most unselfish fashion imaginable - precisely because you concentrate on your partner.

How many more divorces? If you don’t have a stable family unit you do not have a stable society. Simple as that.

I don’t have the latest figures on divorce, but I recall that about half of the marriages end in divorce - and most of those people re-marry. The society seems pretty stable.

 

[Shike]

Freedom is neither good nor bad. Just like that hammer we talked about.

Choice can be morally good or morally bad. True freedom is the ability to choose the good, and therefore is not morally good but simply good. Exercising one’s freedom is morally good (I was imprecise before when I said that freedom seems to have a moral character).

But there is a deeper level of goodness, ontological in nature. Something has value insofar as it exists; existence is good. The true, the good, and the beautiful all go hand in hand. One cannot deny ontological goodness without denying truth or beauty. If one cannot see the ontological value in something existing versus it not existing, then it is very well likely that one will be confused in moral matters.

I did not miss it. But the fact is that God did order it, and Abraham was about to do it. And God praised his faith and obedience.

My translation of this: “if the bible is inconvenient, let’s pretend it is not there, or let’s explain it away”. The OT is filled with moral atrocities (as defined by the Chtsitian and Catholic morality) ordered or committed by God. You can’t just sweep it under the rug by saying “sola scriptura”. Well, you can try, but no one will accept it.

I don’t intend to sweep anything under the rug. Most people read the Bible and come away with a vastly different meaning than you seem to. If what you say is true it would be groundbreaking and momentous, why you could even write your own book and become a famous Biblical scholar. But Richard Dawkins beat you to it, though most of it is pretty silly so you are better off without the option of going down that road.

Question: Have you read the entire Old Testament?

Note: How are you are able to criticize Catholic morality and scripture without some official list of Church doctrines? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

They consider themselves catholic, but not the super-orthodox type.

Fine. They think what they think, I’m not going to say they are not Catholic. I will say, however, that their actions speak louder than their words in that they seem to treat Catholicism as more of a cultural thing than a true thing. The view supported by the doctrines of the Church is the latter rather than the former.

A large part, yes. But other parts most certainly not. And the part dealing with sexuality are definitely not.

These are mere assertions. They don’t provide any argument in themselves. They don’t even touch the points I have been making in regards to natural law philosophy.

The point is that pure pleasure seeking does NOT contradict anything. It is part of the functionality. It does go against some part - namely procreation, but it is only some Christians and some Catholics who assert that the procreative part is the most important functionality. And their argument has always been religion based.

Study your paragraph closely because there is a major contradiction. “Pure pleasure seeking does NOT contradict anything” … “It does go against some part”.

It’s okay to say you made a mistake in saying this. I hope that we are both seekers of the truth and realize that we don’t have all the answers. That’s what learning is for.

Also note that the possibility of procreation being the most important function of intercourse has nothing to do with the fact that one of its functions is being contradicted.

And finally, do some history fact checking. Natural law philosophy is what the western world was founded upon. It has been practiced by those who are religious and those who aren’t. I also challenge you to find any premise of mine that question begs the veracity of any religion.

If that is their decision, it is their business.

So you worship individual choice as the highest good?

Either choice is the highest good or it is not or there is no such thing as hierarchy of goods. If choice is the highest good, then please stop saying that morality is completely subjective. If it is not the highest good but still a part of the hierarchy of goods, then please stop saying that morality is completely subjective. If there is no hierarchy of goods and morality is completely subjective, then stop advocating your worship of choice as an objective moral good.

Why not talk about peanut butter instead?

Do you recognize truth as an intrinsic good? If you do not, then why are you so adamant about reasoned discourse? If you do recognize truth as an intrinsic good, then it seems to me that you are in objective morality territory. “Oughts” are based upon “goods”. Objective “oughts” are based upon objective “goods”.

I don’t have the latest figures on divorce, but I recall that about half of the marriages end in divorce - and most of those people re-marry. The society seems pretty stable.

I suppose so, especially if you discount any financial crisis, or crime rates, or suicide rates, or abortion rates (yes, the right to life is a part of natural law philosophy as well–and is part of the foundation for any possible human right).

Actually, I heard that the “half of marriages end in divorce” figure has yet to be justified by any data. It seems there is a general ignorance on the matter in that it is very hard to get relevant statistics (so I hear).

 

[Spock]

Choice can be morally good or morally bad. True freedom is the ability to choose the good, and therefore is not morally good but simply good. Exercising one’s freedom is morally good (I was imprecise before when I said that freedom seems to have a moral character).

Sorry, no dice. Freedom is the freedom to choose which tie to wear today, the red one, or the blue one. It is totally irrelevant what the subject of that choice might be.

But there is a deeper level of goodness, ontological in nature. Something has value insofar as it exists; existence is good. The true, the good, and the beautiful all go hand in hand. One cannot deny ontological goodness without denying truth or beauty. If one cannot see the ontological value in something existing versus it not existing, then it is very well likely that one will be confused in moral matters.

Nonsense. Existence is neither “good” nor “bad”.

I don’t intend to sweep anything under the rug. Most people read the Bible and come away with a vastly different meaning than you seem to.

It says what it says.

Note: How are you are able to criticize Catholic morality and scripture without some official list of Church doctrines? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

I can criticize because I must rely on my own understanding, precisely because there is no official list.

Fine. They think what they think, I’m not going to say they are not Catholic. I will say, however, that their actions speak louder than their words in that they seem to treat Catholicism as more of a cultural thing than a true thing. The view supported by the doctrines of the Church is the latter rather than the former.

The point is that referring to the doctrines of the church is irrelevant and futile, BECAUSE a huge percentage of catholics dispute it. If you cannot convince your own “soul-mates” how can you expect to convince others?

These are mere assertions. They don’t provide any argument in themselves. They don’t even touch the points I have been making in regards to natural law philosophy.

This is getting aggravating. You suggested that a large part of Catholic morality is also accepted by the secular world. I AGREED to this and pointed out that a sizable part is discarded by the secular ethics. Now you say that this is merely an assertion? Sorry, this will not stand. You are playing a sicko “hide and seek” with nonsensical remarks.

Study your paragraph closely because there is a major contradiction. “Pure pleasure seeking does NOT contradict anything” … “It does go against some part”.

No need to study. I know what I said. Pleasure seeking does not necessarily include the procreation part. There is no contradiction in eliminating the unnecessary part.

Also note that the possibility of procreation being the most important function of intercourse has nothing to do with the fact that one of its functions is being contradicted.

Again. ONLY in your opinion.

And finally, do some history fact checking. Natural law philosophy is what the western world was founded upon. It has been practiced by those who are religious and those who aren’t.

Irrelevant. The proponents of it were wrong, just like the ancient Greeks who thought that the brain is just a cooling organ for the blood.

So you worship individual choice as the highest good?

I do NOT worship anything. If those hypothetical people choose to do something that DOES NOT AFFECT others, it is their own business.

Do you recognize truth as an intrinsic good?

There is no such THING as truth and there is no such THING as good. There are infinitely many “true propositions” and there are infinitely many “good == useful” acts.

I suppose so, especially if you discount any financial crisis, or crime rates, or suicide rates, or abortion rates (yes, the right to life is a part of natural law philosophy as well–and is part of the foundation for any possible human right).

A stable society is not STAGNANT. Do you see the significance of this?

Actually, I heard that the “half of marriages end in divorce” figure has yet to be justified by any data. It seems there is a general ignorance on the matter in that it is very hard to get relevant statistics (so I hear).

I really do not care if only 5% of marriages end in divorce or 95% of them. The point is that out current society is stable enough. No couple having oral sex in their bedroom will push the society into a chaos. No people wanting to avoid pregnancy - and doing something about it - will create an anarchy. Get back to Earth, buddy!

 

[Shike]

Sorry, no dice. Freedom is the freedom to choose which tie to wear today, the red one, or the blue one. It is totally irrelevant what the subject of that choice might be.

Well, I guess I don’t know what to say other than this seems to be your definition. If we can’t agree on a definition than we will be talking past each other. So perhaps in this respect we are talking past each other.

Just please have respect for the different definition when you come across the word being used by the Church. Like chastity, the Church doesn’t define these words the way that you do–it might help you to be more open in the hopes you can learn what the Church means so you are able to argue against them.

Nonsense. Existence is neither “good” nor “bad”.

Morally good or morally good, no, probably not. But ontologically good, most definitely. If you recognize any value in the truth than you will recognize value in existence. If not, then why do you put so much emphasis on rational discourse?

If one truly believed what you have said there would be no reason for them to do anything, stick around, die, not die, nothing at all. I want you to stick around. And I hope you don’t think these things.

The point is that referring to the doctrines of the church is irrelevant and futile, BECAUSE a huge percentage of catholics dispute it. If you cannot convince your own “soul-mates” how can you expect to convince others?

Referring to the doctrines is not irrelevant. If they want to be Catholic than they will strive to follow Christ and the Church. If you want to be a plumber do you go and fly kites? If you want to learn plumbing do you go and study your navel?

I do agree with one of your points however, and it is scandalous. I will be trying to work on that in the coming years. And now.

If you are confused if something is a doctrine or not, let me know. I will find out for you.

This is getting aggravating. You suggested that a large part of Catholic morality is also accepted by the secular world. I AGREED to this and pointed out that a sizable part is discarded by the secular ethics. Now you say that this is merely an assertion? Sorry, this will not stand. You are playing a sicko “hide and seek” with nonsensical remarks.

No, I think you might have misunderstood me. If you read back over our posts I think it will help. I did not say that a large part of Catholic morality is accepted by the secular world. My point is that a large part of Catholic morality is knowable by mere reason, and that is accessible to any secular. Consequently such moral truths knowable by reason would then not be considered Catholic morality proper but simply morality. Catholicism incorporates this morality and goes deeper, to the point of willing to die for the love of another.

I’m sorry you are frustrated.

No need to study. I know what I said. Pleasure seeking does not necessarily include the procreation part. There is no contradiction in eliminating the unnecessary part.

Okay well I’m very certain you contradicted yourself. There doesn’t seem to be a favorable interpretation of your words that avoids the contradiction.

It is true that in practice someone could use contraception. And even without contraception it remains true that intercourse does not necessarily include procreation (in your words the ‘unnecessary part’). But my argument is much deeper than this. In intercourse when you discard the possibility of procreation by use of artificial contraception, you actively contradict one of the functions of intercourse and as such the human person.

You are confusing the independence of the functions (that they can be activated separately) with the concrete situation of artificial contraception which actively contradicts and innate function.

And as I said. The function of any other organ that is contradicted necessarily produces negative effects. Given this, why is intercourse so special that it is not subject to the laws of nature (in a broader sense than mere scientific laws)?

And if existence is neither good nor bad. Why do you care if negative effects are produced or not? Your arguments have undermined your very reason for being here (or at least any logical one).

I do NOT worship anything. If those hypothetical people choose to do something that DOES NOT AFFECT others, it is their own business.

First of all, it has always been my point that what they are doing not only hurts themselves, but in the end affects others negatively, however much.
Second, from what you have said about morality, I don’t think you have any grounds to say that it isn’t my own business. What if it is my morality to get involved in other people’s affairs that do not affect me? (of course this is not my view, but perhaps you can see my point).

There is no such THING as truth and there is no such THING as good. There are infinitely many “true propositions” and there are infinitely many “good == useful” acts.

What’s wrong with calling truth real?

First of all, I have no problem seeing truth as referring to those propositions that are true.
Second, unless you think truth contradicts truth (ie. a denial of the principle of non-contradiction), it makes perfect sense to call truth singular.
And third, not all truth is propositional.

I wound talk about how contracepting ourselves out of existence would be harmful to society.

I thank you for the exchange. I hope you are having a good day.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

Well, I guess I don’t know what to say other than this seems to be your definition. If we can’t agree on a definition than we will be talking past each other. So perhaps in this respect we are talking past each other.

Just please have respect for the different definition when you come across the word being used by the Church. Like chastity, the Church doesn’t define these words the way that you do–it might help you to be more open in the hopes you can learn what the Church means so you are able to argue against them.

That is the fundamental problem in pretty much each and every thread. There is a universally accepted meaning of the words and phrases and there is a “church accepted” meaning - and the two are not the same. I stick to the real meaning. As such the conversations are mostly futile - in the sense that we might come to an agreement. But it is not futile in the sense that I learn how the religious mind works.

If one truly believed what you have said there would be no reason for them to do anything, stick around, die, not die, nothing at all. I want you to stick around. And I hope you don’t think these things.

Our biological nature does not allow that.

Referring to the doctrines is not irrelevant. If they want to be Catholic than they will strive to follow Christ and the Church. If you want to be a plumber do you go and fly kites? If you want to learn plumbing do you go and study your navel?

There are several ways to do “plumbing”. Who say that only the church’s way is the one and only? The church says so, obviously. And who will prove that the church is right? The church will do. A nice dog chasing its tail.

No, I think you might have misunderstood me. If you read back over our posts I think it will help. I did not say that a large part of Catholic morality is accepted by the secular world. My point is that a large part of Catholic morality is knowable by mere reason, and that is accessible to any secular.

Same thing. If something is reasonable and rational it will be (and it IS) accepted by the secular world. If it is not, it will be rejected.

You are confusing the independence of the functions (that they can be activated separately) with the concrete situation of artificial contraception which actively contradicts and innate function.

Even if I accept the “contradiction” it is meaningless. Just because it is our biological nature to eat, it is not “damaging” to fast once in a while. Just because procreation is part of sex, it does not mean that one should be “open” to that part each and every time. If you don’t see that, there is really no need to continue.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Just please have respect for the different definition when you come across the word being used by the Church. Like chastity, the Church doesn’t define these words the way that you do–it might help you to be more open in the hopes you can learn what the Church means so you are able to argue against them.

That sounds like a way of expressing that “The church doesn’t speak the same dialect of English that you do.” Is there a Church English to American English dictionary in existence? So far “Speaking Christian” is the closest thing that I have found.

 

[Spock]

That sounds like a way of expressing that “The church doesn’t speak the same dialect of English that you do.”

That is exactly the case. In normal everyday vernacular “love” is a nice positive emotion". In church-speak it is “an act of will”. Now, if I would sneak up behind someone and would kick him in the butt, it definitely would be an “act of will” - so would it be “love”? Then there is the phrase “God is love”. We all know that “love is blind”, so from these two propositions we get that "God is blind"and if we combine it with the other “definition”, we get “blind is an act of will”. Yes, indeed a church-speak dictionary would be most welcome and needed. I recall Dana Carvey in his superb performance of the Church Lady… “how conveeeenient” when something needs to be “explained away”.

 

[Shike]

That is the fundamental problem in pretty much each and every thread. There is a universally accepted meaning of the words and phrases…

Hardly universally accepted. And hardly historical. You equate choice with freedom. My guess is that the word freedom can be found in the founding documents of the U.S. And do you think that those definitions will mean mere choice?

There are several ways to do “plumbing”. Who say that only the church’s way is the one and only? The church says so, obviously. And who will prove that the church is right? The church will do. A nice dog chasing its tail.

Meh. The variety of ways isn’t pertinent to my analogy. If you want to do plumbing, any kind of plumbing, you don’t fly a kite.
Seriously, if you want to be a U.S. citizen you abide by the laws of the country. And if you want to be Catholic you strive to follow Christ and the Church’s teaching (the same thing).

Same thing. If something is reasonable and rational it will be (and it IS) accepted by the secular world. If it is not, it will be rejected.

Because we know that all seculars correctly employ reason all of the time. I see no reason to believe that.

Even if I accept the “contradiction” it is meaningless. Just because it is our biological nature to eat, it is not “damaging” to fast once in a while.

Look at your example a in a bit more detail. What ‘organ’ is used to eat. The mouth, teeth, stomach, ect. So if you permamently sewed your mouth shut or removed your stomach you would be going against innate functions. Fasting is not going against, contradicting, any innate function. Unless you think that we must eat every second of the day all the time.

Just because procreation is part of sex, it does not mean that one should be “open” to that part each and every time. If you don’t see that, there is really no need to continue.

I realize that intercourse doesn’t always end in procreation each and every time. But my point remains, if you use artificial contraception you contradict the potential to procreate and therefore contradict a natural function.

There is a big difference from using something other than its purpose versus using it contrary to its purpose.

 

[Shike]

That sounds like a way of expressing that “The church doesn’t speak the same dialect of English that you do.” Is there a Church English to American English dictionary in existence? So far “Speaking Christian” is the closest thing that I have found.

Well the Church has been around a long time and has influenced the English language a lot. It’s really Spock’s definitions that are novel. But I am willing to accept someone else’s definition for things because it is still possible to dialog, we just have to remember what the other person means when he uses a specific word.

 

[Shike]

That is exactly the case. In normal everyday vernacular “love” is a nice positive emotion". In church-speak it is “an act of will”. Now, if I would sneak up behind someone and would kick him in the butt, it definitely would be an “act of will” - so would it be “love”? Then there is the phrase “God is love”. We all know that “love is blind”, so from these two propositions we get that "God is blind"and if we combine it with the other “definition”, we get “blind is an act of will”. Yes, indeed a church-speak dictionary would be most welcome and needed. I recall Dana Carvey in his superb performance of the Church Lady… “how conveeeenient” when something needs to be “explained away”.

Your understanding of love as an act of the will is not complete. So you really show some silliness here.

 

[Spock]

Look at your example a in a bit more detail. What ‘organ’ is used to eat. The mouth, teeth, stomach, ect. So if you permamently sewed your mouth shut or removed your stomach you would be going against innate functions. Fasting is not going against, contradicting, any innate function. Unless you think that we must eat every second of the day all the time.

Your correct equivalent to sew up the mouth would be self-castrating. A proper example would be “singing” - a totally different type of usage of mouth - and still perfectly natural. Fasting does go against the digestive system - period. And it is fine and healthy if not overdone.

And since you realize that the act does not always result in a conception (about only 5% of the time) there is nothing wrong to make sure that the other 95% will happen. I see no reason for this conversation. You keep talking about some nebulous “harm”, but so far did not bring up any specific one.

Your understanding of love as an act of the will is not complete. So you really show some silliness here.

The silliness was intentional to show the silly nature of church-speak. The criticism is still valid. There is a need to translate church-speak to real English.

 

[Shike]

Your correct equivalent to sew up the mouth would be self-castrating.

I am not making a direct analogy. I am only pointing out examples of actions going contrary to the innate purpose of organs. It’s to help you see the difference between using something other than its purpose versus against its purpose. It’s a vital distinction and you will not grasp natural law philosophy unless you understand this point.

A proper example would be “singing” - a totally different type of usage of mouth - and still perfectly natural.

It is true that singing and eating are separate functions of the human being that both utilize the mouth. We are talking too loosely, however. I apologize and will correct things by saying we need to focus on the organ in question. With eating there are many organs involved as with singing. Focus on one.

Fasting does go against the digestive system - period.

Nope. It doesn’t go against the digestive system in the way natural law philosophy is interested. Fasting only goes against the digestive system in the relevant way if and only if we must always be eating and digesting something 100% of the time.

You keep talking about some nebulous “harm”, but so far did not bring up any specific one.

I most certainly did. You have not been paying attention.

I said that using artificial contraception causes intercourse to become a selfish act (regardless of mental dispositions) and contradicts the very meaning of what intercourse is supposed to express. (ie. true love). I believe that I also said more.

The silliness was intentional to show the silly nature of church-speak. The criticism is still valid. There is a need to translate church-speak to real English.

If you are going to make a joke like this at least get a full definition instead of a partial one.

But you are correct in a way, there is a need for you to understand the terms being used. But why is your English real English and not my English? Who has been around longer, you or the Church? And who has had more influence on the English language, you or the Church?

I hope you don’t read much 1st hand historical literature. You might get incredibly confused.

I have been learning your definitions, why haven’t you been learning mine?

 

[Spock]

I said that using artificial contraception causes intercourse to become a selfish act (regardless of mental dispositions) and contradicts the very meaning of what intercourse is supposed to express. (ie. true love). I believe that I also said more.

Yes, you certainly did. But it was just a proposition without any evidence to support it. Neither contraception nor extra-vaginal ejaculation is a selfish act. And it expresses even “truer” love since the partners concentrate on each other and willingly postpone their own gratification. Just like the mouth is part of the digestive system, but it can be used for a variety of other legitimate uses without those becoming unnatural, selfish or whatever (examples are: talking, singing, licking your partner’s earlobes if they find that stimulating, and miriads of other uses) the sexual organs, which are part of both the reproductive and elimination systems can be used to give and receive pure pleasure without any side effects.

Insofar you asserted that any act of sex without completing “inside” causes selfishness. This is just about as ridiculous as saying that masturbation causes blindness, or grows hair on your palms or causes spina cord malformation… or any of the other ridiculous lies told by dumb parents and other assorted authorities.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But you are correct in a way, there is a need for you to understand the terms being used. But why is your English real English and not my English?

There’s other ways of qualifying which vernacular is being used. Why not try this: when ever we are talking about a vernacular that is specialized for a field or area we can call it by the name of that field are area. For example when talking about the words some one in a legal profession uses we could say “Legal vernacular”, “Legal speak”, “Legal english”, or any other mode of communication that is relevant as long as it has the word “legal” attached to it. If we are talking about what is used by people in general outside of a specialty we could call it “common vernacular”, “common language”, or agree to allow a mode to be assumed to be of the common type (exoteric or layman’s) unless specified otherwise.

I have been learning your definitions, why haven’t you been learning mine?

I’ve picked up on some of the idioms being used but have also encountered inconsistencies with how these idioms are used. It’s not always clear when some one is using a phrase literally or using a specialized meaning or idiom. Because the words to which these specialized meanings are attached are so frequently used in layman’s vernacular to mean something else recognition that the word is being used in a different sense is a challenge and not immediately clear. A consequence of not being able to recognize that the speaker is using a term in a different manner leads to further confusion.

A dictionary or guide mapping the specialized terms to layman’s terms would helpful and much appreciated.

 

[Shike]

Yes, you certainly did. But it was just a proposition without any evidence to support it.

I disagree, I have provided some points in natural law philosophy to back my position up.

But realize that you are contradicting what you just said. Remember, you said:

You keep talking about some nebulous “harm”, but so far did not bring up any specific one.

You need to be more precise.

Just like the mouth is part of the digestive system, but it can be used for a variety of other legitimate uses without those becoming unnatural, selfish or whatever (examples are: talking, singing, licking your partner’s earlobes if they find that stimulating, and miriads of other uses)

And this I have no problem with. I agree whole-heartedly.

the sexual organs, which are part of both the reproductive and elimination systems can be used to give and receive pure pleasure without any side effects.

Depends… if you use “pure pleasure” as a euphemism for “contraceptive intercourse” than that is a problem. In that case it would mean going against (contrary) a natural and innate function.

It seems that you don’t yet see the difference between using something other than its purpose versus using something contrary to its purpose. They are most different.

Insofar you asserted that any act of sex without completing “inside” causes selfishness. This is just about as ridiculous as saying that masturbation causes blindness, or grows hair on your palms or causes spina cord malformation… or any of the other ridiculous lies told by dumb parents and other assorted authorities.

I fail to see the analogy.
But I do agree that saying masturbation causes blindness is indeed silly.

Again: we see that any other human function which is contradicted causes negative consequences: why is intercourse so special that it is immune to the laws of nature?

 

[Shike]

A dictionary or guide mapping the specialized terms to layman’s terms would helpful and much appreciated.

Or people could define their terms before they begin talking since this is a philosophy sub-forum.

I agree with your point, however, in regard to some specialized fields. But, the words freedom and chastity are not a part of a specialized field, and the definitions I put forward, are not only what the Church usually means but what the general usage of the terms mean.

Using the word freedom in an amoral context is relatively recent, something to be attributed to moral nihilism than really anything else. Most people aren’t moral nihilists.

But with regards to specialized fields such as aristotelian metaphysics and thomism, there does exist resources where someone can go to and learn.
And in the context of Church teaching, the Catechism seems like an excellent resource.

There really shouldn’t be very much confusion in the usage of terms as long as someone is willing to be humble and willing to listen and learn.

 

[Spock]

Will answer when I am back from vacation