sex?

[Montalban]

I have offered reasons, but you have once again chosen not to address them. The reasons demonstrate why they are not exceptions and your argument thus far has amounted to nothing more compelling than “they are exceptions because I say so.” I challenge you to quote and rebut each reason I have provided.

I’ve already addressed your exceptions. You contend that they’re acceptable. I don’t.

You rule we’re naturally meant to have kids, then make exceptions for priests, those who can’t have children, those who don’t want children. You believe they’re all valid exceptions. But to me the very point you have exceptions lessens the idea of a rule about nature. You are by very reason of reasoning exceptions undermining a *natural *law. It isn’t natural then.

People don’t naturally choose not to have children. The fact that they choose means it’s not about nature

People don’t *naturally *choose to be priests. It has nothing to do with nature but their faculties as reasoning people.

The more you reason exceptions the more you undermine the very *nature *of natural law.

I would agree that if you said “A natural outcome of sex between a man and a woman is a child” That is indeed natural. A decision by them to have sex and to intervene in the process in order to prevent a child is not natural. The mere fact they used reason in their decision to stymie nature makes it un-natural. This is in fact the reason why the RC Church is against contraception - because it goes against *natural *law.

Thus to willingly become celibate is to do something that is a decision of reason. We’re not *naturally celibate *creatures. You’ve yet to show this.

Further, if the purpose of a thing is irrelevant, then that thing cannot really be said to have a purpose. Therefore, if the purpose of the sexuality is irrelevant, then logically it is a faculty that can be used to whatever end we choose. If God happens to say not to do one thing with the sexuality but that this prohibition is completely unrelated to what sexuality is for, then God is, logically, being arbitrary.

I don’t mean that purpose is irrelevant per se, but knowing the purpose is. Knowing that there is one, is about accepting this on faith. One does not need to know why God exists, to accept that he does. He asks us to come to him like the little children; with faith.

The mere fact that I am reasoning with you should allay any fears you might have that I am against reason. Wisdom is to know the limits of reason.

It is true one can offer all sorts of rationalizations to justify one’s own ends regarding the sexuality. Several here have tried. Still you cannot simply dismiss the faculty of reason so blithely. The fact remains that, fallen as it is, we need the use of our reason to even begin to understand what it is that God is saying. What you’re saying, that reason contradicts submission to God, is nothing more than a senseless defence of ignorance.

I don’t dismiss reason per se. I am reasoning with you that one should have faith.

As Spock is alleged to have said “Logic dictates that logic has no place in this”.

A child has a *reason *for feeling comfortable in the arms of his parent. Likewise I have reason for trusting in God. And, it is not through speculative exercises that seem to both declare a law natural and then allow un-natural exceptions.

 

[Montalban]

My point was that there is a specific prohibition against it, but only in the context of bishops, elders and deacons. If it had been universally understood as totally unacceptable, then why would there be the need to single out that those church leaders should be the husband of only one wife? Obviously they had to be told in the case of the church leaders. There is not, for instance, a particular and specific prohibition against such things as running through the streets naked with ducks on their heads, either, so one could fairly safely assume that wasn’t a major issue.

It struck me as curious that it was not done with the wider application that the one against divorce was. I don’t see the prohibition that church leaders be the husband of only one wife as necessarily simply an extension of the prohibition against divorce, as that would hardly be a new teaching at this time. I’m referencing 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

It is possible that the issue of polygamy was only a fairly common one in the particular communities to which these letters are addressed, Ephesus and Crete. It may be that it was more common only among those in high social position who might reasonably expect or be expected to become the leaders of a religious community because of that position. It may be that there were many converts in these areas from groups in which polygamy was common, so that they came into the religion with multiple wives. I find these better arguments than “nobody would ever think of it as possible.”

That there is a specific prohibition doesn’t mean that there’s not a general prohibition.

There’s no prohibition in the New Testament against bestiality. This in no way implies that it is allowed.

That is in fact the weakness of the sola scriptura ideal with Catholics and Orthodox don’t follow.

 

[KarenNC]

That there is a specific prohibition doesn’t mean that there’s not a general prohibition.

There’s no prohibition in the New Testament against bestiality. This in no way implies that it is allowed.

Yet there is also not evidence that bestiality was a widespread practice in the history of the culture, so I can see where there would not need to be a specific prohibition against it. Was Paul in the habit of writing specific prohibitions against imaginary problems or did he rather address issues that were of specific concern in the communities to which he wrote?

 

[Montalban]

Yet there is also not evidence that bestiality was a widespread practice in the history of the culture, so I can see where there would not need to be a specific prohibition against it. Was Paul in the habit of writing specific prohibitions against imaginary problems or did he rather address issues that were of specific concern in the communities to which he wrote?

Wow, that’s a strained sense of reasoning about the application of a law.

There’s no evidence put forward by you that polygamy was widespread amongst the Jews at the time of Jesus and the New Testament - but because there’s no general prohibition, perhaps there might have been.

There’s no evidence put forward by you that bestiality was widespread amongst the Jews (or not) at the time of Jesus and the New Testament - but because there’s no general prohibition, perhaps it may not have been.

Simply put; within the New Testament there’s no general prohibition against either. That’s what we know for sure. Does this mean that either practice was widespread, (or not, as the case may be). From the evidence of the New Testament we must say that we don’t know. There’s no evidence AT ALL in the New Testament about figures of either (unless you can put some forward).

What we also do know is that the Bible was never set forward to be all encompassing about everything Jesus said - it even says so itself
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

That is the point Other Eric said…
Other Eric:

As Catholics, we draw our divine revelation from more than just Scripture. Along with Scripture we also have Tradition, which is comprised of those teaching that the Church has taught since her founding. The universal prohibition against polygamy can be found here.

That is; the mere limitations of the Bible passages on any given topic are not evidence for anything at all. For you, you seem happy to speculate that an omission here or there is significant.

We know that the Bible didn’t write itself, and that the Apostles, through the power of the Holy Spirit taught a great deal by word of mouth.

I do accept that one might speculate that it is significant that something is written down. One would ask the rhetorical question “If it weren’t significant, why else did they write it down?”, however I must bring back the point that to the early church, its teachings were not just by the written word. We don’t know that it was not widely disseminated through word of mouth. Thus it might have been an issue that was significant, but dealt with by word of mouth.

I agree completely with the Catholic position (which we Orthodox share) on the issue of *sola scriptura *interpretations of the Bible.

 

[KarenNC]

Wow, that’s a strained sense of reasoning about the application of a law.

Really? I don’t find it strained to suggest that a law might a) mean what it says and b) have been written to address an actual rather than utterly unthinkable imaginary problem.

**There’s no evidence put forward by you that polygamy was widespread amongst the Jews at the time of Jesus and the New Testament **

You’re right–I didn’t. Might that be because I never made that claim? In fact, I specifically said that I wondered if perhaps it was an issue limited to those two communities, and possibly only to certain groups within those two communities (those of high social position, converts, etc). I did not say it was only or necessarily among the Jews. I think we can both agree that the New Testament was not written entirely to a Jewish audience or dealing only with the Jewish community.

There’s no evidence put forward by you that bestiality was widespread amongst the Jews (or not) at the time of Jesus and the New Testament - but because there’s no general prohibition, perhaps it may not have been.

Sorry, you are the one who is evidently concerned about the issue of bestiality, not me, since you have brought it up in more than one context on this thread. I will leave it up to you to provide evidence related to your argument.

** For you, you seem happy to speculate that an omission here or there is significant.**

No. I find the inclusions significant.

We know that the Bible didn’t write itself, and that the Apostles, through the power of the Holy Spirit taught a great deal by word of mouth.

Fair enough. To my reading, Paul found this issue significant enough to include it in two written letters and the Church found those letters to be significant enough to perserve them as canon. To me that says that evidently something was going on, at least in those two communities, and at least among some groups of Christians, that was problematic in this area and that the Church Fathers felt it was a teaching that remained significant for the Church as a whole.

**I do accept that one might speculate that it is significant that something is written down. One would ask the rhetorical question “If it weren’t significant, why else did they write it down?”, **

Speculate? I would make the presumption that if something was written and preserved as canon for two millenia that it is arguably significant to the religious body involved. I don’t see this as a rhetorical question, rather as a central question.

however I must bring back the point that to the early church, its teachings were not just by the written word. We don’t know that it was not widely disseminated through word of mouth. Thus it might have been an issue that was significant, but dealt with by word of mouth.

Are you arguing here that it was significant or that it was not?

Are you saying that the written text is not also meaningful or significant because were also teachings that were disseminted by word of mouth? That one may dismiss any of the written text as insignificant? If so, what is the Church standard (Catholic or Orthodox) for which texts may be considered insignificant?

If the sacred Scriptures were indeed God-inspired, did God then simply insert random phrases for fun? It would make many arguments simpler to refute

I don’t, however, believe that such is the teaching of any Christian Church, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox or other.

**I agree completely with the Catholic position (which we Orthodox share) on the issue of sola scriptura interpretations of the Bible.

There is a difference between sola scriptura and “non-scriptura” which is what your argument seems to advocate, or at least that portions of that Scripture are not significant.

What this appears to me to be is an argument that Church tradition is in fact considered superior to the written Scriptures. Is this indeed the case for Catholics and Orthodox? It seems to me an odd position for any Christian church to take, if so.

In the Episcopal Church, which is not sola scriptura, I was taught that theology was a three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition and reason. If any of the three legs were to be considered greater than the other, the stool would not function properly.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Wow, that’s a strained sense of reasoning about the application of a law.

KarenNC:

Really? I don’t find it strained to suggest that a law might a) mean what it says and b) have been written to address an actual rather than utterly unthinkable imaginary problem.

I agree that the law says what it says. How do you know that someone hadn’t asked a question “What if…?” You just assume that there was an existing problem. You’ve offered nothing more than repeating your assumption that it just might have been.

Montalban:

There’s no evidence put forward by you that polygamy was widespread amongst the Jews at the time of Jesus and the New Testament

KarenNC:

You’re right–I didn’t. Might that be because I never made that claim? In fact, I specifically said that I wondered if perhaps it was an issue limited to those two communities, and possibly only to certain groups within those two communities (those of high social position, converts, etc). I did not say it was only or necessarily among the Jews. I think we can both agree that the New Testament was not written entirely to a Jewish audience or dealing only with the Jewish community.

What evidence to you have for it being a problem within even a limited section of the community, say amongst the clergy?

Montalban:

There’s no evidence put forward by you that bestiality was widespread amongst the Jews (or not) at the time of Jesus and the New Testament - but because there’s no general prohibition, perhaps it may not have been.

KarenNC:

Sorry, you are the one who is evidently concerned about the issue of bestiality, not me, since you have brought it up in more than one context on this thread. I will leave it up to you to provide evidence related to your argument.

I’m not concerned at all about it. I’m concerned that you think that the mention of a law means something more than the law was mentioned.

Montalban:

For you, you seem happy to speculate that an omission here or there is significant.

KarenNC:

No. I find the inclusions significant.

Based on your assumption that it must have been.

Montalban:

We know that the Bible didn’t write itself, and that the Apostles, through the power of the Holy Spirit taught a great deal by word of mouth.

KarenNC:

Fair enough. To my reading, Paul found this issue significant enough to include it in two written letters and the Church found those letters to be significant enough to preserve them as canon. To me that says that evidently something was going on, at least in those two communities, and at least among some groups of Christians, that was problematic in this area and that the Church Fathers felt it was a teaching that remained significant for the Church as a whole.

There’s equally other ‘valid’ speculations (valid in the sense that one can’t know). I’ve already presented one above - that it may have been to address specific questions. I don’t put forward my speculation as anything more than that. You seem to be doing so with your speculation.

Montalban:

I do accept that one might speculate that it is significant that something is written down. One would ask the rhetorical question “If it weren’t significant, why else did they write it down?”,

KarenNC:

Speculate? I would make the presumption that if something was written and preserved as canon for two millennia that it is arguably significant to the religious body involved. I don’t see this as a rhetorical question, rather as a central question.

No, that’s to assume that a written word has more value than traditional lessons. You know it was written down. You don’t know what was taught by mouth. With only knowing what was written down you assume that it was more an issue because you know it was written down.
The teachings of the church aren’t all written down. I pointed out that the absence of prohibitions against bestiality does not mean that it was approved. If it were not approved, then the lessons for it were taught by tradition. I don’t value this lesson any less because it was not written down. You speculate that because something was written down it is of more import.

Montalban:

however I must bring back the point that to the early church, its teachings were not just by the written word. We don’t know that it was not widely disseminated through word of mouth. Thus it might have been an issue that was significant, but dealt with by word of mouth.

KarenNC:

Are you arguing here that it was significant or that it was not?

I am not, but I suppose if pressed (see below) I would put tradition over Scripture.

 

[Montalban]

KarenNC:

Are you saying that the written text is not also meaningful or significant because were also teachings that were disseminated by word of mouth? That one may dismiss any of the written text as insignificant? If so, what is the Church standard (Catholic or Orthodox) for which texts may be considered insignificant?

I don’t value it more or less than tradition.

KarenNC:

If the sacred Scriptures were indeed God-inspired, did God then simply insert random phrases for fun? It would make many arguments simpler to refute

This argument for incredulity is based again on the assumption that written lessons were more significant.

KarenNC:

I don’t, however, believe that such is the teaching of any Christian Church, Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox or other.

Orthodox and Catholic churches both value tradition.

Montalban:

I agree completely with the Catholic position (which we Orthodox share) on the issue of sola scriptura interpretations of the Bible.

KarenNC:

There is a difference between sola scriptura and “non-scriptura” which is what your argument seems to advocate, or at least that portions of that Scripture are not significant.

You keep on with this straw-man. I don’t think the written teaching is ‘significant’ or ‘insignificant’ simply based on the fact that it is written down. It is not ‘more’ significant than lessons passed on by tradition.

YOU think it is. You think that the very fact that they wrote it down is a way of setting it out for special attention. You think that this is of itself a pointer that this particular lesson is more significant than something that was not written down. For you the very fact it’s written down points to an indicator that there must have been an issue, else why’d they write it down. It assumes that it was an issue, and that only issues were written down. It is to assume that the written text is more significant than traditional lessons.

It is simply assumption after assumption.

KarenNC:

What this appears to me to be is an argument that Church tradition is in fact considered superior to the written Scriptures. Is this indeed the case for Catholics and Orthodox? It seems to me an odd position for any Christian church to take, if so.

Well I suppose if you pressed me into making a chouice; I were to pick one or the other I guess I would pick tradition. When people came to argue at the Ecumenical Councils on the nature of Christ (say, for example when Cyril of Alexandria argued against Nestorius of Constantinople), they argued not based on the bible but what was always taught, they did this because one could manipulate scripture to suit either argument. Scripture alone was not sufficient.

It is also how they judged books of the Bible to be authentic. The Bible didn’t compile itself.

KarenNC:

In the Episcopal Church, which is not sola scriptura, I was taught that theology was a three-legged stool of Scripture, tradition and reason. If any of the three legs were to be considered greater than the other, the stool would not function properly.

Nice, but given that at one stage there was a missing leg; the reality being that for 300 years the church worked without a canonical collection

Then the canon didn’t authorise itself. They based on tradition the knowledge of what books had been around and when, and what the books taught and whether they were consistent with what had always been taught. However it is odd that you instead place scripture above tradition; that if it’s a lesson that’s written down, it’s more significant than those that are not.

 

[Other_Eric]

I’ve already addressed your exceptions. You contend that they’re acceptable. I don’t.

You rule we’re naturally meant to have kids, then make exceptions for priests, those who can’t have children, those who don’t want children. You believe they’re all valid exceptions. But to me the very point you have exceptions lessens the idea of a rule about nature. You are by very reason of reasoning exceptions undermining a *natural *law. It isn’t natural then.

People don’t naturally choose not to have children. The fact that they choose means it’s not about nature

People don’t *naturally *choose to be priests. It has nothing to do with nature but their faculties as reasoning people.

The more you reason exceptions the more you undermine the very *nature *of natural law.

I would agree that if you said “A natural outcome of sex between a man and a woman is a child” That is indeed natural. A decision by them to have sex and to intervene in the process in order to prevent a child is not natural. The mere fact they used reason in their decision to stymie nature makes it un-natural. This is in fact the reason why the RC Church is against contraception - because it goes against *natural *law.

Thus to willingly become celibate is to do something that is a decision of reason. We’re not *naturally celibate *creatures. You’ve yet to show this.

I don’t mean that purpose is irrelevant per se, but knowing the purpose is. Knowing that there is one, is about accepting this on faith. One does not need to know why God exists, to accept that he does. He asks us to come to him like the little children; with faith.

The mere fact that I am reasoning with you should allay any fears you might have that I am against reason. Wisdom is to know the limits of reason.

I don’t dismiss reason per se. I am reasoning with you that one should have faith.

As Spock is alleged to have said “Logic dictates that logic has no place in this”.

A child has a *reason *for feeling comfortable in the arms of his parent. Likewise I have reason for trusting in God. And, it is not through speculative exercises that seem to both declare a law natural and then allow un-natural exceptions.

It seems that you have misread me. Not once have I written here that humans are “naturally meant to have kids.” You are not quoting anything that I have written and are once again substituting an argument you imagine to be mine.

What I have been saying all along is that there is a natural way to use the sexuality and an unnatural way. What Natural Law mandates is that use of the sexuality be directed to its proper end. You have consistently maintained, without, I might add, any support other than your own say-so, that nature, as you imagine it, compels the use of the sexuality. Man has sexual organs therefore you intuit that it is only “natural” that he use them. A celibate lifestyle is “unnatural” for anyone who has a sexual nature.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is strictly corporeal. It ultimately denies Free Will and imagines that man is a slave of his biology. It crudely restricts man’s final end to the physical universe with no allowance for the immortal soul or the Resurrection. It wallows in the thinking of the fallen world with no thought of the world to come.

Natural Law is not just about our bodies, but also about our souls and our ultimate destiny in union with Christ. Therefore, to forgo carnal relations cannot contradict man’s ultimate end in Christ since sexuality is merely the sign that points to this greater and ultimate end. In the same way we would not call sinful the example of a man who chooses to forgo some luxury that is good in and of itself in order that he may avoid the distractions from Christ that thing might present for him.

I would encourage you to read Summa Theologica, as Saint Thomas Aquinas deals specifically with these objections. In that way, if you still choose to reject the philosophy of Natural Law, it will not be out of such ignorance.

 

[KarenNC]

This argument for incredulity is based again on the assumption that written lessons were more significant.

Please show me a quote in which I claim that written teachings are more signficant rather than simply that all Christian churches of which I am aware consider the written teachings recorded in the epistles of Paul that are considered canon to be significant and relevant to issues that were problematic in the specific churches to which he wrote and that they remain relevant to the life of the Church today.

My argument is that:

1. There are verses in two separate epistles, one to his representative in the community in Ephesus (Timothy) and one to his representative in the community in Crete (Titus), that specifically set out that one of the requirements for a church leader is that he be the husband of “but one wife.” (NIV)

1 Timothy 3:2, 12
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:5-6
5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

1. That Paul wrote these epistles specifically to convey in written form teachings that he was not physically able to convey orally due to distance and that he considered these teachings to be important enough to spend the time writing them.

1 Timothy 1:3-7,18
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

18Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight,

1. My understanding of the purpose of the epistles, especially those to the Greek and Roman communities rather than primarily Jewish ones (were any of the epistles written to primarily Jewish Christians? I don’t know), was to respond to specific issues that were happening in the communities to which they were addressed, not to the random musings about potential situations that everyone agreed would never be an issue because everyone understood that they were prohibited, either through oral teachings or any other means.

This seems in accordance with Eastern Orthodox teachings as I can find them. If you are of a different Orthodox strand that follows a different theology than this, perhaps you can direct me to a site that will give your version.

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
“What was the purpose of the New Testament Writings?
Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines, [4] matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14).”

Therefore, from the above I deduce that
4) There was indeed at least some level of concern with the practice of polygamy within the group of people who may reasonably have been assumed to be eligible for positions of leadership in these communities of Christians at the time that these epistles were written.

The issue of whether it was a widespread or common problem among all Christian communities has been adequately answered and I have not disputed that. You, however, seem curiously stuck on denying that it might have ever existed in any of the communities at all.

See my statement:
"It is possible that the issue of polygamy was only a fairly common one in the particular communities to which these letters are addressed, Ephesus and Crete. It may be that it was more common only among those in high social position who might reasonably expect or be expected to become the leaders of a religious community because of that position. It may be that there were many converts in these areas from groups in which polygamy was common, so that they came into the religion with multiple wives. I find these better arguments than “nobody would ever think of it as possible.”

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

This argument for incredulity is based again on the assumption that written lessons were more significant.

KarenNC:

Please show me a quote in which I claim that written teachings are more significant rather than simply that all Christian churches of which I am aware consider the written teachings recorded in the epistles of Paul that are considered canon to be significant and relevant to issues that were problematic in the specific churches to which he wrote and that they remain relevant to the life of the Church today.

You state that the mere mention of a prohibition WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE is significant. And from that go on to speculate about it and when I counter that there are other laws not written down you don’t count them as significant

KarenNC:

My argument is that:

1. There are verses in two separate epistles, one to his representative in the community in Ephesus (Timothy) and one to his representative in the community in Crete (Titus), that specifically set out that one of the requirements for a church leader is that he be the husband of “but one wife.” (NIV)

1 Timothy 3:2, 12
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

Titus 1:5-6
5The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

1. That Paul wrote these epistles specifically to convey in written form teachings that he was not physically able to convey orally due to distance and that he considered these teachings to be important enough to spend the time writing them.

Paul may have conveyed oral teachings to them when he visited there, or passed them onto another person.

KarenNC:

1. My understanding of the purpose of the epistles, especially those to the Greek and Roman communities rather than primarily Jewish ones (were any of the epistles written to primarily Jewish Christians? I don’t know),

Hebrews was.

KarenNC:

was to respond to specific issues that were happening in the communities to which they were addressed, not to the random musings about potential situations that everyone agreed would never be an issue because everyone understood that they were prohibited, either through oral teachings or any other means.

This seems in accordance with Eastern Orthodox teachings as I can find them. If you are of a different Orthodox strand that follows a different theology than this, perhaps you can direct me to a site that will give your version.

fatheralexander.org/bookl…_whiteford.htm
“What was the purpose of the New Testament Writings?
Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines, [4] matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14).”

Therefore, from the above I deduce that
4) There was indeed at least some level of concern with the practice of polygamy within the group of people who may reasonably have been assumed to be eligible for positions of leadership in these communities of Christians at the time that these epistles were written.

The issue of whether it was a widespread or common problem among all Christian communities has been adequately answered and I have not disputed that. You, however, seem curiously stuck on denying that it might have ever existed in any of the communities at all.

I have not denied at all about its prevalence in any of the communities. I have stated that one can tell from the written evidence is that he wrote to these communities on these issues. Period. You count this as significant, even though you don’t know what was said in non-written form.

 

[Montalban]

You didn’t merely ‘deduce that there was some level’ you implied that there must have been a problem else why would he have written it down. You have worked on the assumption that if we know something was written down, then this is significant evidence. All it is, is evidence that it was written down. We can’t know whether it was significant or not because we don’t have the non-written evidence by which to weigh it against. You go on to say that very thing, the fact that it was written down suggests that it must have been a problem, even if you limit it to within certain sectors of the community…Here you go saying it…

KarenNC:

See my statement:
"It is possible that the issue of polygamy was only a fairly common one in the particular communities to which these letters are addressed, Ephesus and Crete. It may be that it was more common only among those in high social position who might reasonably expect or be expected to become the leaders of a religious community because of that position. It may be that there were many converts in these areas from groups in which polygamy was common, so that they came into the religion with multiple wives. I find these better arguments than “nobody would ever think of it as possible.”

Your evidence from Fr Alexander’s site does not address the fact that this may have been to answer questions rather than deal with an actual event of polygamy. Odd too you don’t address how this site (which you now put forward for your case) undermines your little ‘story’ from Anglican church days. Note he says that the Scriptures aren’t open to personal interpretation. Maybe you think speculation is okay

But we’ve moved so far off the original topic.

 

[Montalban]

It seems that you have misread me. Not once have I written here that humans are “naturally meant to have kids.” You are not quoting anything that I have written and are once again substituting an argument you imagine to be mine.

You can’t have it both ways, you either must argue from ‘natural law’ or not. If you now want to deny a natural law argument, so be it.

What I have been saying all along is that there is a natural way to use the sexuality and an unnatural way. What Natural Law mandates is that use of the sexuality be directed to its proper end. You have consistently maintained, without, I might add, any support other than your own say-so, that nature, as you imagine it, compels the use of the sexuality.

You have argued this. That the natural outcome of sex is kids. Sex is about having kids. Therefore people who knowingly don’t have kids (married couples) are un-natural.

Man has sexual organs therefore you intuit that it is only “natural” that he use them. A celibate lifestyle is “unnatural” for anyone who has a sexual nature.

Indeed celibacy is un-natural. I stated so. You’ve been arguing that it was a valid exception within the natural law framework

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is strictly corporeal. It ultimately denies Free Will and imagines that man is a slave of his biology. It crudely restricts man’s final end to the physical universe with no allowance for the immortal soul or the Resurrection. It wallows in the thinking of the fallen world with no thought of the world to come.

Now again you need to make up your mind which argument you wish to have. If it is ‘natural’ to have children from sex, but you allow “free will” to over-ride this, you’ve simply allowed homosexuality back into the argument because they can argue that it is within their “free will” to over-ride the ‘natural’. As I note you really have to stick to an argument.

Natural Law is not just about our bodies, but also about our souls and our ultimate destiny in union with Christ. Therefore, to forgo carnal relations cannot contradict man’s ultimate end in Christ since sexuality is merely the sign that points to this greater and ultimate end. In the same way we would not call sinful the example of a man who chooses to forgo some luxury that is good in and of itself in order that he may avoid the distractions from Christ that thing might present for him.

Same as above. Either stick with natural law, or not.

I would encourage you to read Summa Theologica, as Saint Thomas Aquinas deals specifically with these objections. In that way, if you still choose to reject the philosophy of Natural Law, it will not be out of such ignorance.

What I object to more so here is your application of a law, then allowing exceptions, then arguing we’ve got a mind allowing us to choose above what is natural, then switching back to what is natural. All along you’ve been doing this, happily proclaiming both the argument for the law, and the exceptions that undermine it.

 

[KarenNC]

**You have worked on the assumption that if we know something was written down, then this is significant evidence. All it is, is evidence that it was written down. We can’t know whether it was significant or not because we don’t have the non-written evidence by which to weigh it against. **

Very well. I will concede that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider the writings of Paul that are listed as sacred canon in their own Scriptures, as decided and weighed against the unwritten evidence that you assert was their guide in deciding on the canon by the Church officials (despite your assertion that these teachings do not exist for comparison to the written text), as being indicative of anything other than that at some point in the past some unknown individual (presumably human, though one can’t be sure, it seems, as it is unsafe to make any presumption upon the evidence that humans are the only animals generally known to communicate through writing as that is speculation rather than reason) employed some implement to make marks on a surface.

I concede that such marks on a surface made by the Church Fathers, Apostles, and any other person in the history of Christianity or Judaism have absolutely no significance today in understanding said religions and had none in the time period in which they were written, as they may well have been rendered irrelevant by the unwritten teachings which you say were never recorded, despite any evidence that any religious body has deemed them to be significant for said religious body and that they therefore are of no more use in any attempt to understand either the time period or the lessons they may contain than the most recent issue of the National Enquirer, and that the recipients of such marks on a surface understood this to be true.

I concede that any such marks on a surface may have had absolutely no basis in the reality of the lives of the people at any time then or since, but were likely merely rhetorical musings about imaginary suppositions, and that any application of reason in any attempt to decipher such markings in the context of the time in which they were written is pure speculation.

They are your sacred Scriptures, not mine. If you do not choose to consider them significant, far be it from me to contradict you.

I’m done.

 

[Montalban]

"Montalban:

You have worked on the assumption that if we know something was written down, then this is significant evidence. All it is, is evidence that it was written down. We can’t know whether it was significant or not because we don’t have the non-written evidence by which to weigh it against.

Very well. I will concede that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not consider the writings of Paul that are listed as sacred canon in their own Scriptures, as decided and weighed against the unwritten evidence that you assert was their guide in deciding on the canon by the Church officials (despite your assertion that these teachings do not exist for comparison to the written text), as being indicative of anything other than that at some point in the past some unknown individual (presumably human, though one can’t be sure, it seems, as it is unsafe to make any presumption upon the evidence that humans are the only animals generally known to communicate through writing as that is speculation rather than reason) employed some implement to make marks on a surface.

ROFL

I concede that such marks on a surface made by the Church Fathers, Apostles, and any other person in the history of Christianity or Judaism have absolutely no significance today in understanding said religions and had none in the time period in which they were written, as they may well have been rendered irrelevant by the unwritten teachings which you say were never recorded, despite any evidence that any religious body has deemed them to be significant for said religious body and that they therefore are of no more use in any attempt to understand either the time period or the lessons they may contain than the most recent issue of the National Enquirer, and that the recipients of such marks on a surface understood this to be true.

I have never said that they have no significance. At least I don’t believe that I have, you may have caught me on a bad day. All I have said is that you can know from the written prohibition that there’s a written prohibition to that point.

You still want to make an appeal to incredulity that they surely must have been for some purpose you know about by assuming a certain position. I will even concede that you might well be correct. However one can not know because the limits of the written words in no way is an indicator at the lengths the lessons were given orally.

One could speculate that the written prohibitions to the limited few were augmented/supplemented by a more wide-spread oral prohibition. If this were the case then your speculations about the written prohibitions would be incorrect because it does not consider the depth of oral teaching that may have accompanied it.

We don’t know that this prohibition was to assuage a situation that existed, or whether it was in response to a specific question. I don’t believe that this is me saying it - the written prohibition - is ‘pointless’ as you seem to think I should believe. I think it is pointless to speculate on the degree of problem within the church based solely on the written text which DOES NOT INDICATE THAT. This is the problem many people bring to reading the Bible; believing that their reading of it is not ‘interpretation’.

If we can return to the topic of the OP, that would be great.

 

[Other_Eric]

You can’t have it both ways, you either must argue from ‘natural law’ or not. If you now want to deny a natural law argument, so be it.

You have argued this. That the natural outcome of sex is kids. Sex is about having kids. Therefore people who knowingly don’t have kids (married couples) are un-natural.

Indeed celibacy is un-natural. I stated so. You’ve been arguing that it was a valid exception within the natural law framework

Now again you need to make up your mind which argument you wish to have. If it is ‘natural’ to have children from sex, but you allow “free will” to over-ride this, you’ve simply allowed homosexuality back into the argument because they can argue that it is within their “free will” to over-ride the ‘natural’. As I note you really have to stick to an argument.

Same as above. Either stick with natural law, or not.

What I object to more so here is your application of a law, then allowing exceptions, then arguing we’ve got a mind allowing us to choose above what is natural, then switching back to what is natural. All along you’ve been doing this, happily proclaiming both the argument for the law, and the exceptions that undermine it.

What you want me to support is your impoverished and wrong-headed view of what you imagine Natural Law to be. You have now for a third time refused to engage any of the arguments I have made and once again fallaciously posited that I have written, “sex is about having kids.” You have even ignored argument that directly denies this in order to advance your crude syllogism. You cannot expect to come up with a phantom version of what you believe Natural Law to be and then expect others who believe in the real philosophy to defend your malformed conception of it.

• Since man is, according to the Natural Law taught by Aquinas (not Montalban), composed of body and soul as a result of his nature, Natural Law takes this into account.
• Natural Law as taught by Aquinas (not Montalban) dictates that if the sexuality is to be used, it must be used to its proper end. This end is not merely procreation.
• Natural Law as taught by Aquinas (not Montalban) does not mandate the use of the sexuality. Nowhere have you demonstrated it does.
  I once again repeat my appeal for you to read Summa Theologica and find out what Natural Law really is. To repeatedly assert that cases of celibacy and the infertile are exceptions and to obstinately ignore reasoning to the contrary based on nothing more than “I stated so,” is the argument of a child. If you believe that Natural Law really is what you say it is, please find me just one reference in Summa Theologica that supports this. Just one. Either that, or simply admit that you are arguing on nothing more than your own authority and will have to demonstrate that somehow you have managed to out-think a doctor of the western Church whose reasoning has survived for 733 years.

 

[Montalban]

What you want me to support is your impoverished and wrong-headed view of what you imagine Natural Law to be.

No, I want you to support ‘Natural Law’. You support some amalgam of “Natural Law” plus exceptions based on pre-conceived beliefs, which is the position I have stated from the beginning.

You have now for a third time refused to engage any of the arguments I have made and once again fallaciously posited that I have written, “sex is about having kids.”

It’s the Catholic stance. I noted its the very reason they’re against contraception. The natural outcome of having sex (when both are capable) is to have children. If you want to keep advertising that you don’t understand the Catholic position, that’s up to you. Unless of course you’re only offering a defence of the “Other Eric Theory of Natural Law”
“The Church, calling people back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by her constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life”
footnote at
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02fc.htm
Therefore the exception you so gallantly defended; that of a couple who wilfully do not have kids, is in direct contrast to Catholic teaching. Rather than smugly directing me to go read the Suma Theologica, I believe you might find useful a perusal of Catholic teaching on Natural Law.

You have even ignored argument that directly denies this in order to advance your crude syllogism. You cannot expect to come up with a phantom version of what you believe Natural Law to be and then expect others who believe in the real philosophy to defend your malformed conception of it.

But I haven’t done this.

Natual law is based on the principal that God has made a certain state of being that is ‘natural’. You have yourself at least got this part correct. Any interference in this is against the state God created and therefore not natural, and therefore against God.

Thus any coming together of two people who are capable of having kids should result in having kids. That’s why the RC Church is against artificial contraception, it only supports the ‘rhythm method’ which is in sync with the natural fertility cycle.
“…contraception and artificial procreation. In the first case, one intends to seek sexual pleasure, intervening in the conjugal act to avoid conception; in the second case conception is sought by substituting the conjugal act with a technique. These are actions contrary to the truth of married love and contrary to full communion between husband and wife.”
newadvent.org/library/docs_cf9601.htm

The church is against abortion too, for the reasons of natural law. (Which is not, of course their only argument).
“…abortion is a violation of natural law and is always wrong…”
newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm

• Since man is, according to the Natural Law taught by Aquinas (not Montalban), composed of body and soul as a result of his nature, Natural Law takes this into account.
• Natural Law as taught by Aquinas (not Montalban) dictates that if the sexuality is to be used, it must be used to its proper end. This end is not merely procreation.
• Natural Law as taught by Aquinas (not Montalban) does not mandate the use of the sexuality. Nowhere have you demonstrated it does.

ROFL. What do you think its ‘proper end’ means?

Now you’re even providing evidence that supports me. Thank you.

 

[Other_Eric]

No, I want you to support ‘Natural Law’. You support some amalgam of “Natural Law” plus exceptions based on pre-conceived beliefs, which is the position I have stated from the beginning . . .

You continue to conflate “open to the transmission of life” with the idea that sexual activity is justified only by procreation. You have quoted Familiaris Consortio to this effect but nothing in this document restricts sexuality only towards procreation. Indeed, that same document states:

. . . sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is by no means something purely biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. (1)

If sexuality is not purely biological, it cannot be solely for procreation. As this is in the same document you have quoted to demonstrate the Catholic position, you must concede that this is the Catholic position.

In order to support sexuality’s sole purpose is in procreation, you would need to find something that says any sexual activity that does not result in conception is sinful. Try as I might, I have been unable to find that in Familiaris Consortio. Indeed, quite the contrary, the same document affirms non-procreative sexuality when it is not deliberate:

It must not be forgotten however, that even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does not for this reason lose its value. Physical sterility in fact, can be for the spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work, and assistance to other families and to poor or handicapped children.(2)

Nowhere have I defended a couple who willfully choose not to have children. It is curious that in your taste for quoting things others have written in order to advance your point that you have been unable to find any instance of such an argument from me and choose to, once again, put words into my mouth. I would suggest that if you’re going to characterize my argument this badly that you at least do me the favor of quoting where you imagine me to be saying these outlandish things.

Your ignorance is carried over in your idea that the Catholic Church only permits the rhythm method to avoid procreation. Perhaps you do not know of Natural Family Planning? I suggest you read about it. To be succinct, while the Church does not approve of artificially contracepted sexual activity by virtue of her discernment of Natural Law, nowhere does she say that sexuality’s sole end is procreative.

And so, I will state a fourth time. The natural purpose of sexuality is dual. Its proper ends exist both in unity and procreation. Neither can be deliberately frustrated but there is no transgression of the Natural Law when either is absent in spite of the couple’s intention. This is the Natural Law. If you need to know more, you could always read Summa Theologica. In all, it appears you have a lot of reading to do.

(1) John Paul II. Familiaris Consortio. 1981. Part Two, 11. Available online at: newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02fc.htm

(2) Ibid. Part Two, 14.

 

[Montalban]

You continue to conflate “open to the transmission of life” with the idea that sexual activity is justified only by procreation. You have quoted Familiaris Consortio to this effect but nothing in this document restricts sexuality only towards procreation. Indeed, that same document states:
If sexuality is not purely biological, it cannot be solely for procreation. As this is in the same document you have quoted to demonstrate the Catholic position, you must concede that this is the Catholic position.

You miss the point. To this position is the idea that sex is about ‘love’ etc, and thus not ‘purely’ biologicial. However the key point is that it must be OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE, which is to have kids.

One might not ‘naturally’ have children from having sex, but it must be OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE. If one interferes in that natural process and therefore it is not OPEN TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE, it is deemed wrong. The example I gave, of two people not wanting to have children means that their relationship is NOT OPENT TO THE TRANSMISSION OF LIFE.

The fact that sex involves love and other things on top does indeed add to it, but this in no way lessons the fact it’s about kids - or the real possibility of having them.

Amusing though your attempts to argue about your own church have been this is now bordering on boring. I have no problem with you saying Sex is not JUST about having kids. Which is what you have so highlighted. But it MUST include the openess to them.

A couple who join together with no desire to have kids and who prevent this their entire life are according to YOUR CHURCH sinful.

 

[Sixtus]

The definition of a mortal sin is 'cutting oneself off from GOD.

What about the scenario where a woman is living in a loveless affectionless marriage, who is ill as a consquence and who choses to stay there for the sake of the childre

A man who is also married. He is living in enforced celibacy because his wife married him for the wrong reasons. He too is feeling very dejected. He can no longer function due to the stresses in his life, but stays there for the sake of his children.

The two of them meet. It is harmful to their respective families to take the easy route and just divorce and apply for an annulment. They chose to fulful each others needs.

They remain steadfast in their faith. They now pray together, work for the good of the Church together and praise GOD together.

Therefore the criteria for a mortal sin has not been met. They have NOT rejected GOD.

How do you respond to that?

St Paul said 'we are made righteous not by obedience to the law but by faith in Christ

 

[valient_Lucy]

okay i actually went out and asked abunch of people in the mall i live near about there opinions on sex. and some said it was dirty and wanted to scold me for even asking such a thing, others who are obviously christians said that it is very wrong to have sex.

But there were a handfull who said something along the lines of “sex is pleasurable and is a gift from God, but just dont abuse it”

whats your opinion?

We need to find you a real hobby.