Yep, really.
You agreed that NL refers to some laws mentioned in the Bible. Let’s take the law “homosexuality is wrong,” which is mentioned in the Bible. Can you derive that proposition via NL independently without ultimately appealing to the Bible? That’s the key test.
Spence:
The difficulty here is that you can argue from biology that procreation is the proper end to which the genitalia should be put, but you cannot argue from biology for the virtues of monogamy, nor can you argue for the value of celibacy, nor can you make an absolute argument for marriage to be the best or the only way to raise children…without some idea or revelation coming from outside the realm of biology that would indicate the value of these other goods.
But one may derive similar goods from alternative family structures, such as those that are less nuclear and/or those which recognize same-sex attracted members of the family as providers of what some scientists believe to be their evolutionary purpose: an extra pair of hands to provide caregiving for the children of siblings. That means that those siblings may be better equipped to have a few additional children while the fact that the same-sex attracted care-giver is not producing children means, too, that the resources (food, shelter, etc.) which his or her children may have consumed can be more easily allocated (and without too much competition!) to the children that actually exist. That is, these children will have advantages which those in other settings and lacking such caregivers will not have. Larger, multi-generational families living together increase these advantages. So would polygamous families. So would a well-run commune in which its members “didn’t believe in marriage.”
Spence:
The Bible does not contain all of the natural laws, if I may use that as a generality. It is not a compendium of laws. Many times, natural laws might stand out brightly in some passages. Other times, maybe not. But, the way you have described it is how it should be, in my opinion, albeit it may not.
Look at Post 31. I did that in the middle of that post.
Deo Volante:
This sounds like BS with a pre-disposition. And, while a few exceptions might prove out, the central dynamic remains in-exceptionally the same. There are many stupid things that humans do. There are many who are into bestiality. Does that exception prove that bestiality is valid alternative? I do not think so. A million airplanes fly. A rare few cannot get off the runway, and merely bounce their ways back to their hangars. That is not proof of a viable alternative to the purposes of an airplane.
Of course not. Nor would a sane person expect them to.
Again, the exception.
Yes they can. But, outside of regular marriage, they are not following the ways prescribed by Christ, are they? No two men, nor any two women, without surrogates, will ever procreate - at least not until science can do something quite remarkable! But, that is a mutilation.
And, that’s OK. Our Church is not telling them not to “love” one another. But, neither are we stupid enough to believe that cohabitation will not lead inexorably to same sex sex.
Not so. If that were the case then a rapist might simply inform his intended victim what he is about to do. That would not in any way, shape, or form, mitigate what he does.
No question, Mark. The Atheist would not be at all in step with Christian ideals. I, for one, would not expect him to. Remember, not everyone will be saved. Not everyone wins. Someone has to lose. I wish that it weren’t so.
Sorry, JD. I may have misread you, thinking that you were attempting to make an argument for marriage from biology alone. There are indeed arguments to be made from biology (such as the argument *for *procreative acts as a good), but other arguments cannot be made so easily on the basis of biology alone. I think you know that though, so I’ll stop there.
I hope the church is also disinclined to believe that people must sin, or that some people *cannot *avail themselves of the grace needed to refrain from sin. Of course, we’re all sinners and sin can disfigure any relationship, including validly confected and otherwise happy marriages. The good news, however, is that such relationships can be healed, and repentance, true repentance, is possible. That there is a possibility that sin may occuer in a relationship is no reason (in itself) to suppress a relationship that begins in love and virtue and could otherwise lead to growth in love and virtue.
The question is not mitigation, but the proper end to which communication is ordered. In my (admittedly paltry) attempt at defining an end, the two important concepts are “appropriate” and “needful.” In a relationship characterized by abuse, such as that between a rapist and a victim, the speech of the abuser can never mitigate the inappropriateness of the abusive aspects of the relationship. Because the relationship is inappropriate, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to communicate what is needful–that is, the speech of an abuser is by nature inappropriate and unable to properly convey what is needful because the abusive nature of the relationship renders it inappropriate. An abuser may say things that are true, but until the relationship is restored to appropriateness in such a way that it can become once more conducive to human dignity and growth, the speech of such a person will always be a casualty of the abuse in the relationship and unable to communicate what is actually needful. Or something like that. Maybe. I don’t know. more thought is needed!
I don’t think it is so. No one actually has to lose–that’s the wonder of the love of God. But one of the great mysteries (and tragedies) of the world is that it seems some would prefer to lose. Let it be said that I don’t think atheists, by virtue of their atheism, are necessarily in that category (I wouldn’t like to venture to guess who is actually in that category). I actually think atheists are closer to apprehending God than many theists who prefer their own image of God to the reality of what God is, falling prey, in the process, to idolatry. in the end, we could all use a little more of the via negativa in our lives–I think that would serve as a corrective to all of us idolatrous theists as well as to the denying atheists!
DV:
It is, to a realistic extent.
That’s the reason the Catholic Church does not condemn same sex relationships that remain chaste.
It is so critical that communication be not only truthful, but also, deception-less. I believe these two properties to be the most important properties of human communication from our earliest attempts at it. We are well aware of how detrimental withholds are to a stable relationship. Although full disclosure seems to invariably introduce a sense of dirtiness to at least one partner when it comes to future marriage acts, for example, the marriage may still be preserved. But, the man who has one, or more, flings but does not disclose, creates a tension in the relationship that is exacerbated into more and more lies and deceptions. It may render the marriage act - within the marriage - something difficult to pull off.
While that is true, the various churches have a great deal of Theology on the subject of the elect and the un-elect. The Catholic Church believes that everyone has the opportunity of attaining the Vision, but that not all will. I’m pretty certain that there are no pre-destined souls, for Catholicism, although God knows who will and who won’t ask for his grace.
I tend to agree.
You are very welcome, Mark. Please pull me out of the Philosophy forums whenever you feel that you want to help prevent an otherwise sane man from going insane!
there is no natural law basis for our theology of the Trinity. this theology is direct revelation from God.
I’m gonna take a stab at explaining the difference if I can.
