Is the essence of a person the sum total of his atoms?

[Vico]

Which part of “a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction)” needs clarification?

If my memory serves me, it was you who presented some questions to me, which I tried to answer to my best ability.

I am asking your to explain your statement: “Sex … has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.” I am now asking about the statement you reference in your question.

 

[Solmyr]

I am asking your to explain your statement: “Sex … has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.” I am now asking about the statement you reference in your question.

Well, that was your statement. You left out a significant part of it. Mine was: **“Sex is a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction). It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.” ** It said explicitly that “Sex is a perfectly normal activity”. Sorry, I have no idea what is your point.

 

[Vico]

Well, that was your statement. You left out a significant part of it. Mine was: "Sex is a perfectly normal activity, practiced by almost all existing beings (exception being the ones with a-sexual type of reproduction). It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception." It said explicitly that “Sex is a perfectly normal activity”. Sorry, I have no idea what is your point.

The original context of the post was about contracepted sexual intercourse.

Vico:
Contraception is clearly grave matter since it is intrinsically evil.

Solmyr:
The idea that one must give oneself TOTALLY is absurd. If I would give myself TOTALLY, then I would disappear. If my spouse would give herself TOTALLY, then she would disappear. Instead of having two loving people we would have NOTHING.

Vico:
One point of clarification, however, is that the sexual act signifies total self-giving, so I think you misunderstood. Not giving the proper non contraceptive conjugal act is contrary to the marital contract so it is morally unjust.

Your statement from post #176 is about Sex: “It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.”

Clearly from the definition of sex, it does have to do with the conjugal act. It appears that you are not responding to my post and instead changing subjects to sex as defined in 4 below.

(Collins Dictionary, British English)

Sex, (noun)
1 the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive function
2 either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis
3 short for sexual intercourse
4 feelings or behaviour resulting from the urge to gratify the sexual instinct
5 sexual matters in general

 

[Solmyr]

Your statement from post #176 is about Sex: “It has nothing to do with the conjugal act, with marriage or contraception.”

Clearly from the definition of sex, it does have to do with the conjugal act. It appears that you are not responding to my post and instead changing subjects to sex as defined in 4 below.

(Collins Dictionary, British English)

Sex, (noun)
1 the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive function
2 either of the two categories, male or female, into which organisms are placed on this basis
3 short for sexual intercourse
4 feelings or behaviour resulting from the urge to gratify the sexual instinct
5 sexual matters in general

3, 4 and 5 are all applicable in this context.

Sexual activity occurs outside marriage. Also occurs without procreation. Also occurs without the intent to procreate. As such they do not form a logically inseparable unit. As such they do not go hand in hand. In other words they have nothing to do with each other… logically speaking.

Of course some people assert that sex is “sinful” if it is not intended to be procreative, but what of it? Why should such people be accepted as “authorities”?

That is all.

On the other hand, you keep avoiding my question: “to what extent is the catholic church considered to be an authority and a ruler over non-catholics?” Is the “command” that one MUST be open to procreation applicable to non-catholics? Do you have an answer to that?

 

[Vico]

3, 4 and 5 are all applicable in this context.

Sexual activity occurs outside marriage. Also occurs without procreation. Also occurs without the intent to procreate. As such they do not form a logically inseparable unit. As such they do not go hand in hand. In other words they have nothing to do with each other… logically speaking.

Of course some people assert that sex is “sinful” if it is not intended to be procreative, but what of it? Why should such people be accepted as “authorities”?

That is all.

On the other hand, you keep avoiding my question: “to what extent is the catholic church considered to be an authority and a ruler over non-catholics?” Is the “command” that one MUST be open to procreation applicable to non-catholics? Do you have an answer to that?

I like to take one question at a time since it is less confusing to sort out posts.

The post that you responded to was about “total self-giving” but you started off in another direction, and apparently, you will not address the original comment. Forget it, you have made no point on total self-giving issue.

Yes, the Catholic Church is the authority for then entire world and everyone should follow its infallible teachings on faith an morals (dogmas of faith), because they are the revealed truth of God. (Not all the Catholic teachings are infallible.) It is morally right to follow these teachings on faith an morals, even if one does not understand them, even if one is an atheist or follows another religion.

Pope Pius XI on being “open to life”:

“….any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated [robbed] in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sin.” – Pope Pius IX expressed in 1930 (Casti Canubii)
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

 

[Solmyr]

Yes, the Catholic Church is the authority for then entire world and everyone should follow its infallible teachings on faith an morals (dogmas of faith), because they are the revealed truth of God.

I understand what you say. But why should anyone accept this a self-authenticated claim? There is no “outside” authority you could appeal to. God does not come down with his flaming sword to testify on your behalf.

To make it short and sweet. You say: “the catholic church must be accepted in the case of faith and morals… because the catholic church says so”. DUH! Now do you hope to authenticate this claim? You cannot appeal to the idea that it was Jesus who founded the church, because you don’t have any evidence to support this claim, except: “the church says so”. You can’t even appeal to the bible, because the bible is a compilation of texts, collected by the church.

Fortunately for all of us, the church has no temporal authority any more to enforce these claims. The best argument was always the sword: “obey, or else…!” But that is not applicable any more. So you need to perform the next best thing: “argue for your claims”. But you have only your word. So what next? You can threaten with God’s wrath if we don’t obey. But that is also an empty threat.

You might try to appeal to some ill-defined “natural law”. But that “natural law” says nothing about non-procreative sex. There is nothing engraved on the human “heart” which would urge us to stay chaste. People like to have sex, and when they don’t want to procreate, they will use protection. And there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, a prolonged chaste lifestyle is definitely detrimental. The allegation that members of the clergy stay chaste without any ill effects is not particularly convincing in the light of reality.

Pope Pius XI on being “open to life”:

“….any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated [robbed] in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of grave sin.” – Pope Pius IX expressed in 1930 (Casti Canubii)
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

But again, the pope is not an accepted authority outside the church… and not even goes unquestioned WITHIN the church. A very sizable percentage of the catholics do not accept the pope’s authority on sexual matters.

 

[Vico]

I understand what you say. But why should anyone accept this a self-authenticated claim? There is no “outside” authority you could appeal to. God does not come down with his flaming sword to testify on your behalf.

To make it short and sweet. You say: “the catholic church must be accepted in the case of faith and morals… because the catholic church says so”. DUH! Now do you hope to authenticate this claim? You cannot appeal to the idea that it was Jesus who founded the church, because you don’t have any evidence to support this claim, except: “the church says so”. You can’t even appeal to the bible, because the bible is a compilation of texts, collected by the church.

Fortunately for all of us, the church has no temporal authority any more to enforce these claims. The best argument was always the sword: “obey, or else…!” But that is not applicable any more. So you need to perform the next best thing: “argue for your claims”. But you have only your word. So what next? You can threaten with God’s wrath if we don’t obey. But that is also an empty threat.

You might try to appeal to some ill-defined “natural law”. But that “natural law” says nothing about non-procreative sex. There is nothing engraved on the human “heart” which would urge us to stay chaste. People like to have sex, and when they don’t want to procreate, they will use protection. And there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, a prolonged chaste lifestyle is definitely detrimental. The allegation that members of the clergy stay chaste without any ill effects is not particularly convincing in the light of reality.

But again, the pope is not an accepted authority outside the church… and not even goes unquestioned WITHIN the church. A very sizable percentage of the catholics do not accept the pope’s authority on sexual matters.

“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), and faith is provided by the Holy Spirit through actual graces, prior to any conversion.

Since God has created man with free-will, it is to be expected that some will reject him, and one form of that is to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Frankenfurter]

I follow what my conscience dictates, and I am not interested in God’s mercy. It would be enough if God would be just.

I don’t reject God, because he did not present evidence for his existence. He is simply NOT THERE to reject.

That sounds like the ultimate sin to me.

It is interesting that one could reject mercy. I am not sure how things could ever come to that point. Wat would be the point?!? It is not rational.

The point of my thread is that perhaps it is in part this belief that all is material,or physical that might lead one into this trap of one’s own creation.

If one wanted to be like higher apes one could live in harmony with the song: ‘You and me baby we aint nothing but mammals, so let’s do it like they do it on the DIscovery channel.’

I will note that the song lyrics used the phrase ‘nothing but’ which discounts the potential for anything higher order.

I am sure that most of us will get lost along these lines. I simply note that the words of Christ and of our Church point to a higher road, that most of us reject. This rejection goes quite deep and has penetrated the assumed meaning of the words that we use.

 

[Solmyr]

“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1), and faith is provided by the Holy Spirit through actual graces, prior to any conversion.

Even when I used to be a believer this was an empty assertion for me.

Since God has created man with free-will, it is to be expected that some will reject him, and one form of that is to reject the teachings of the Catholic Church.

But this assertion is another unsubstantiated one. It is only the catholic church which says this, and there is no outside corroborating evidence. There is no way to avoid the conclusion: “The catholic church is always right in the questions of faith and morals… because the catholic church says so”.

 

[Solmyr]

That sounds like the ultimate sin to me.

That is not an argument. I am aware that the lack of belief (atheism) is considered to be a “mortal sin”, but I reject that assertion.

It is interesting that one could reject mercy.

You did not read the “fine print”. I said that IF there is a God, then being JUST would be sufficient. A just judge would not condemn someone for the lack of belief, if there is no sufficient evidence for the belief.

I am sure that most of us will get lost along these lines. I simply note that the words of Christ and of our Church point to a higher road, that most of us reject. This rejection goes quite deep and has penetrated the assumed meaning of the words that we use.

Oh, you can argue that sexual activities are “sacred” or something like that, but only a miniscule portion of humans will agree with you (and that miniscule portion does not even include ALL the catholics). And God does not come down to confirm your opinion.

 

[tonyrey]

Even when I used to be a believer this was an empty assertion for me.

But this assertion is another unsubstantiated one. It is only the catholic church which says this, and there is no outside corroborating evidence. There is no way to avoid the conclusion; “The catholic church is always right in the questions of faith and morals… because the catholic church says so”.

The Church was founded by Jesus and reflects His teaching on fundamental issues like the sanctity of life but it is impossible to take into account every single moral issue that confronts individuals in widely differing circumstances throughout history and throughout the world. There is often a conflict of rights as in the case of a mother and her unborn child.That is why the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience and not even the Pope has the right to question our decision. We are expected to be motivated by love, ask for advice and pray for guidance but not infallible…

 

[Solmyr]

The Church was founded by Jesus and reflects His teaching on fundamental issues like the sanctity of life but it is impossible to take into account every single moral issue that confronts individuals in widely differing circumstances throughout history and throughout the world. There is often a conflict of rights as in the case of a mother and her unborn child.That is why the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience and not even the Pope has the right to question our decision. We are expected to be motivated by love, ask for advice and pray for guidance but not infallible…

Not really. The church CLAIMS that it was founded by Jesus. Yet another unsubstantiated CLAIM. There is no outside source for such CLAIMS. God, of course, could come down and testify on the church’s behalf… but he is soooo gun-shy.

 

[GEddie]

Oh, you can argue that sexual activities are “sacred” or something like that, but only a miniscule portion of humans will agree with you (and that miniscule portion does not even include ALL the catholics). And God does not come down to confirm your opinion.

So long, hasta la vista, Cinco de Mayo, etc.

The subject matter has become uninteresting to me; ergo, I’m out of here.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Vico]

Even when I used to be a believer this was an empty assertion for me.

But this assertion is another unsubstantiated one. It is only the catholic church which says this, and there is no outside corroborating evidence. There is no way to avoid the conclusion: “The catholic church is always right in the questions of faith and morals… because the catholic church says so”.

These truths are substantiated, contrary to what you say, only, you do not accept the authority.

 

[tonyrey]

The Church was founded by Jesus and reflects His teaching on fundamental issues like the sanctity of life but it is impossible to take into account every single moral issue that confronts individuals in widely differing circumstances throughout history and throughout the world. There is often a conflict of rights as in the case of a mother and her unborn child.That is why the Church teaches that our ultimate authority

A Roman historian Tacitus*, a Jewish historian Josephus** and a Syrian prisoner*** referred to “Christus”. You need to provide an alternative explanation for details of his life, death and teaching if your counter claim is to be credible…

God, of course, could come down and testify on the church’s behalf… but he is soooo gun-shy.

He did! Only you don’t recognise Him! Where do you think His teaching originated? Do you reject it lock, stock and barrel? Can you offer a superior alternative? What are your supreme values in life? Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die!?!

BTW I agree to some extent with that policy but it isn’t the whole story…

*Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. **Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, and the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesu/nonchristianaccounts.html

******About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure. He attracted many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate sentenced him to die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our citizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day. ****
ibid

**
*****What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. - *****Mara bar Serapion ***
**Mara bar Serapion ibid
**

 

[tonyrey]

That is not an argument. I am aware that the lack of belief (atheism) is considered to be a “mortal sin”, but I reject that assertion.

It’s not a sin but a virtue! (if it’s sincere

You did not read the “fine print”. I said that IF there is a God, then being JUST would be sufficient. A just judge would not condemn someone for the lack of belief, if there is no sufficient evidence for the belief.

“if” is the key word.

Oh, you can argue that sexual activities are “sacred” or something like that, but only a miniscule portion of humans will agree with you (and that miniscule portion does not even include ALL the catholics). And God does not come down to confirm your opinion.

argumentum ad populum!

 

[tonyrey]

So long, hasta la vista, Cinco de Mayo, etc.

The subject matter has become uninteresting to me; ergo, I’m out of here.

ICXC NIKA

Come back soon, Eddie!:knight2:

 

[Solmyr]

These truths are substantiated, contrary to what you say, only, you do not accept the authority.

I do not accept anything, if it is only asserted by some self-proclaimed “authority”. Be is a secular or a religious claim. I am an equal-opportunity skeptic. The definition of an authority is someone who can substantiate his claim, and does not need to point to some further “authority”.

There is no direct evidence for the so-called “miracles” allegedly performed by Jesus. It is all hearsay.

 

[Vico]

I do not accept anything, if it is only asserted by some self-proclaimed “authority”. Be is a secular or a religious claim. I am an equal-opportunity skeptic. The definition of an authority is someone who can substantiate his claim, and does not need to point to some further “authority”.

There is no direct evidence for the so-called “miracles” allegedly performed by Jesus. It is all hearsay.

The Catholic faith is called a faith, not a proof.

Historic records never seem to prove things without controversy. If you are looking for a record of Jesus Christ from non believers outside of Christianity, there is Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin43a-b of healings of Jesus, attributed to sorcery. Also Julius Africanus believes that in the 3rd book of Thallus’ history, which mentions the darkness by an eclipse of the sun, but thought it wrong that it was due to an eclipse. This is speculatively in agreement with the Bible account.

 

[Solmyr]

The Catholic faith is called a faith, not a proof.

According to the catechism, God’s existence can be proven without any appeal to faith.