M
moondweller
Guest
What would that matter to you?
- Status
J
josie_L
Guest
Are you saying that the majority of Christians back then and up until the Reformation were able to read/write? And do you realize how long it took to write out a Bible before the printing press was invented? And furthermore do you know how costly a Bible would be for the average Christian (before this time)? And it’s no coincidence moreover that the reformers who separated themselves from Tradition (“oral” deposit of faith) would latch onto the only thing remaining to them, the Bible. So it’s obvious how Sola Scriptura came about.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I’d like to see it for myself…not just take your word for it, moon.
So, where’s the documentation, please!
P
PRmerger
Guest
It’s natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.. Gluttony is natural, too, but certainly you don’t believe you should eat whatever and whenever you care to!
Also, is that what you’d tell your wife–“Hey! Lust is natural! I felt like having sex with my co-worker and I did! What’s the big deal?”
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
Just to clarify my position here … greed doesn’t necessarily seek to promote injustice or unfairness (IMO that’s logically absurd). Greed is greed & there’s no nexus between John Doe striving toward success (and John measuring success by capital accumulation) and the promotion of injustice.
Mr. Doe might think that it would be a great idea if everyone had such aspirations and put those aspirations into action. Looking at it from the perspective of the United States, where arguably all people have an opportunity for advancement (although I don’t pretend all have an equal opportunity … I merely say all people have an opportunity). All people who aren’t mentally handicapped can distinguish right from wrong, but many tend to rationalize poor behavior by using their circumstances as an excuse.
While most deviant people are born into poor circumstances, most people born into poor circumstances do not become deviant in adulthood. So the question becomes to what extent should society subsidize their poor choices? I say only to the extent where it has a utilitarian benefit to the society as a whole. Law and order is the basis for any civil society, yet there may be cases where we say trying to mitigate deviance through methods other than our justice system might make more economic sense.
What’s less expensive and more desirable … a judge tossing a non-violent offender in the slammer, or giving him or her an opportunity to better their lives?
In terms of my own political philosophy I look to men like John Locke rather than Karl Marx (indeed I think Marx preached a philosophy that’s just as counter-intuitive to human nature as Christianity is). My economic ideals are shaped by men like Adam Smith and his progeny. I believe this way because time and collective experience has proven these men right (although not 100% of the time).
You might counter by saying Smith and Locke were theists (although they weren’t exactly hard theists … but that’s another story). However, of course logically speaking there’s no nexus between whatever their religious views may have been & their political or economic philosophy. Even if one was in part shaped by the other … it still doesn’t validate theism (since capitalism itself is arguably anti-Christian). Moreover, I don’t say everything Jesus taught is a bad idea. Forgiveness, to an extent, is a great idea. Additionally, who can argue with the idea of loving our neighbor (heck right wing Christians and hippies would both agree with that idea).
But there are many other areas where Christian virtues violate our nature, and inflict unnecessary consequences on society.
Take our divorce laws as an example. The framework of our divorce law elevates marriage to something more than a simple contract, which is all marriage ought to be. This has caused all sorts of unfairness in divorce. If two people desire to enter into a contract that pledges fidelity to one another, but want to do so under their own terms, why should they be restricted by the state? Perhaps they don’t want to be sexually exclusive, or if they do at least if one party violates the contract they’re guilty of breaching the contract. There’s no consideration of who has greater earning power or any other factor that wouldn’t be relevant in a typical contract dispute. If one party breaches the other can sue for dissolution of the agreement with no penalty (after all why should a breach of contract be rewarded). Additionally in the area of sex, why should humans be made to feel guilty for mere lust, which is a natural part of life? This anti-sex religious regime is itself responsible for a multitude of problems. Since we know sex is a natural part of life, and like not washing our hands frequently can put ourselves at risk if proper precautions aren’t taken, then if people understood there’s nothing wrong with sex; but they need to take proper precautions in the interest of their own health (like we do with the food we eat, water and sewage treatment, and everything else that serves our biological function) then we could prevent an untold number of STD’s, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
Now the CC even seeks to infuse itself into science. Failing to learn its lesson from its folly in the Galileo era the CC again seeks to be the one who decides what’s good science and what violates their own ethical scheme. It bases it’s authority on the most undemocratic principal that exists in the western world. If you want to know why so many people object to the idea of an infallible pope, all we need to do is look to Roman history during their empire period when the emperor became its supreme imperial ruler. This is where western man began to learn that absolute power corrupts absolutely (and we haven’t forgotten those important lessons). So if you wonder why so many people emphatically and vocally object to your church … here’s a few hints.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You certainly can’t be including the CC in this “anti-sex” regime, because clearly the teachings our our church *elevate *sex!
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I can come up with a bunch of other examples of human nature that must be tempered for the greater good. It’s always a matter of degree isn’t it? Sure, gluttony might be natural (although not exactly, but we can assume it is for the purpose of this discussion). However, we know gluttony is unhealthy (and makes one a fat slob).It’s natural, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.. Gluttony is natural, too, but certainly you don’t believe you should eat whatever and whenever you care to!
Also, is that what you’d tell your wife–“Hey! Lust is natural! I felt like having sex with my co-worker and I did! What’s the big deal?”
Moreover, with regard to marriage, even if we just viewed marriage as a simple contract, if the parties agreed on sexual exclusivity then a party who cheats is in breach of contract (and the other party can sue for damages and dissolution). With regard to sex, the dogma of the CC (and other churches) hasn’t made people (including the vast majority of Catholics) any more chaste. The fact is single people (including older teenagers) will always have sex; because sex is fun. Indeed by making it so taboo we probably encourage teenage sex more than discouraging it.
J
josie_L
Guest
Sexual desire is natural; lust I believe is an abuse of sexual desire.
lust (lst)
n.
- Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
Noun 1. sexual desire - a desire for sexual intimacy.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
First, you’re not a guy (so you can’t speak for men). Next, I don’t know what sort of world you live in (to my knowledge Canadians aren’t that sheltered) but sex surrounds us (it always has). When a man speaks to an attractive women he will think about having sex with her (I don’t care how sexually repressed he is, or whether he admits it or not, this is always true unless you’re gay). Second, I use the word lust loosely (perhaps I should say sexual craving, regardless of the degree of intensity).
Sure we control ourselves because it’s in the interest of an orderly society (after all how productive could a company be if everyone was having sex all day). However, the degree of sexual repression Catholicism demands is absurd (and is itself harmful to society).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Exactly!! Gluttony is unhealthy and lust is, too. And, yes, it is indeed a matter of degree.
Ok…but if I were the husband who breached the contract I’d still feel like what I did wasn’t wrong because “lust is natural” as you claim.
Why should I be sued for what’s natural?Ok. Irrelevant. And I’d probably argue with that. I think I read somewhere couples who have the most frequent and enjoyable sex are married couples who worshipped weekly. They’re pretty chaste, then, if they’re enjoying sex with one another! No need to look elsewhere…
The fact is single people (including older teenagers) will always have sex; because sex is fun. Indeed by making it so taboo we probably encourage teenage sex more than discouraging it.
You really think teens having sex is good for society?
J
josie_L
Guest
My point was to make a distinction that you failed to make between sexual desire and lust, that’s all. Furthermore, I very well know that sex surrounds us to the point of saturation really, and that’s the problem (so stop saying I’m sheltered). Also, not all men think like you (although I realize they are the exception rather than the rule) in that they are not automatically thinking about sex when they meet an attractive woman.
There would be no harm done to society if people were to wait to have sex, that’s absurd.
M
moondweller
Guest
Then do some history reading for yourself, PR. Get out of that Catholic rut of having everything told to you. If you take the effort you might appreciate the result.
J
josie_L
Guest
What history? And you’re bordering on the insulting, watch it.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
because you entered into a binding agreement (and according to our common law system you are therefore bound). Performance of a contract always involves providing a good or service the other party would rather not do. In other words everyone would like money for nothing; but obviously society can’t function in such a world. So our courts enforce valid contracts. Indeed a sound legal system that fairly and equitably enforces contracts is the bedrock of a sound economy.Ok…but if I were the husband who breached the contract I’d still feel like what I did wasn’t wrong because “lust is natural” as you claim.
I strongly doubt that … but I’d love to see the study?
I don’t think it’s good or bad … it happens and it will continue to happen (unless you’d like to confine our kids in a Catholic reform school for the duration of their youth). Given that it’s a reality (and it always has been IN SPITE OF revisionist nostalgia) we should deal with it in a rational way.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
josie L:
not was I was inferring; but I should have clarified. By framing sex as a “taboo” it probably encourages irresponsible sex more than it discourages it. If we simply acknowledge it’s a natural part of life we can deal with the subject rationally; whereas Catholics teach it’s not necessarily natural (and they make people believe their deviant and attach shame to our natural desires).
In other words the Christian religion teaches that the natural state of humanity is sinful. Everything about “the flesh” is deemed unholy. Therefore, adherents to your religion will feel guilt for natural thoughts or urges. There are very few atheist rapists in prison, yet our prisons are full of Christian rapists. There are very few atheist pedophiles in our prison system, yet it’s full of Christian pedophiles.
You might say such people abrogate their religion by such behavior … but the fact is they were raised Christian and continue to profess a belief in your religion; therefore it’s logical to assume their behavior was influenced by their religious views. Obviously the influence isn’t direct, but given the fact that atheists compromise a fraction of 1% of our prison population, while we represent nearly 10% of the population (while two thirds of our prison population are professing Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant), you have to ask yourself – why?
S
SHW
Guest
There is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
**
Greed: excessive desire for getting or having, esp. wealth; desire for more than one needs or deserves; avarice; cupidity**
The RESULT of greed is always injustice.
This is why Scripture states, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 19:23
The poor will always be with us. (cf. Matthew 26:11) These poor are the handicapped or ill or old. Persons with able bodies have no excuse. I say “no welfare” to able bodied persons.
Scripture states, “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I say “subsidize no one’s poor choices.”
Work is good, idleness is not. There are many jobs which non-violent offenders can do, rather than sitting in jail. These, however, will not be jobs that people will necessarily want to do, so the recidivism rate will not be high.
Again: “For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10
Sex is reserved for lifelong marriage only. Marriage is a sacrament, not a contract. Marriage is a covenant relationship, both persons vowing to become one flesh until death parts them. God actually joins them together into this one flesh. (cf. Matthew 19:3-10)
Many persons “join” with prostitutes and/or adulterers instead of marrying. (1 Corinthians 6:18-20)
Sex is not an absolutely natural part of life which needs to be partaken of in order to live. Eating and drinking and breathing are some of the natural parts of life. A person who stays chastely single is no less a person than the person who marries.
I’ve got the true answer:
John 15:18
If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.
There really is nothing new under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
J
josie_L
Guest
But sex is not considered a taboo in the CC. And the Church very well knows the natural impulses that we have, however, sex is sacred. And its sacred because such a gift was meant to be cherished within the confines of marriage (a sacrament) not thrown about like yesterday’s leftovers. People have made everything that is good in life a commodity, a means to an end. People use other people for sexual gratification and nothing more. This kind of mentality is what leads to prostitution, promiscuity, pornography . . . etc. You don’t seem to understand that we were not built to be like this per se (that we have a higher nature to which we are being called to), and that is why we see what we do surrounding us because people are not acting as they should.
The Church has never treated the “flesh” as unholy (the gnostics however believed this). And again it is not stating that the natural state of humanity is sinful but the abuse for that of which we have, is. Furthermore, if adherents of my religion did feel guilt for “natural” thoughts or urges than they would as a result not have committed the things they did because guilt is a sign of having a conscience. You moreover forget that Christians live in a society saturated in sex. I don’t know if its escaped your notice but we have industries devoted to sex that make billions of dollars selling whatever kinky cr*p they can think of. And it is destroying marriages because people are becoming obsessed with the kind of sex that is being peddled by the porn industry (married woman cannot compete with porn stars). Many men/boys get their ideas about sex from porn where there is no mention of love and marriage and sacredness. So don’t you go blaming the Church for the fact that there are Christian pedophiles. It’s our lack of respect for our bodies and the degradation of sex that has led to the amount of pedophiles we now have in our society.
You are so fixated on giving me statistical facts when the truth of the matter is that this is more a manifestation of a morally depleted society.
W
Worthy5
Guest
So Moon why did not Christ just write a book while He was still on earth? Curious. Thanks
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
according to your religious diatribe greed is always bad (I never said your mythology treated greed kindly). However, I’m talking reality not the virtues of primitive old testament poets.
the poor, handicapped, etc. don’t always have to be with us. We can in theory evolve to a state where these things are eliminated (through humane means of course). When we learn why people are born with congenital defects we can mitigate them. If we allow ourselves to become more enlightened and as we move beyond ancient superstition with no rational basis, we can overcome ignorance and poverty.
If anything your religion enables poverty and ignorance.
I’m not a sociologist so I can’t comment on your opinion here. All I’m saying is the method I prefer to analyze these questions is logic as opposed to ancient mythology (I wasn’t necessarily providing answers).I say “subsidize no one’s poor choices.”
Work is good, idleness is not. There are many jobs which non-violent offenders can do, rather than sitting in jail. These, however, will not be jobs that people will necessarily want to do, so the recidivism rate will not be high.
religious quotes won’t convince me of anything … give me statistics, evidence from empirical studies, etc. then we will have a rational foundation to discuss this issue with.
more religious diatribe … noticeably absent are references to reality?
and because you guys preach a life denying religion all you think people need is to merely breath and eat. Sorry to disappoint … but I think that’s a dark world view.
no better way to instill loyalty among the sheep then to make them believe it’s us against them. It’s a classic tactic … and I see it for what it is.
C
Ceil-1
Guest
HD,
You are rude to people who do not share your point of view. How rational is that? You’re telling everybody else their on a diatribe. You’re on a diatribe, and you sound ridiculous.
You are rude to people who do not share your point of view. How rational is that? You’re telling everybody else their on a diatribe. You’re on a diatribe, and you sound ridiculous.
- Status