Smoking is intrinsically disorderd

[nilofc]

These are not assumptions. Theses are things that I have heard Catholics call evil: Drugs and masturbation (choking the chicken).

What you personally hear from your catholic friends may not be necessarily reflect what the Church teaches. But then again, one may not know what the Church really teaches that’s why one have a perverted belief and reasoning. But in this case, Drug-abuse and Masturbation are evil. No question about that.

Use your words, your logic, and your reasoning skills to explain to me why masturbation is wrong. You can’t do it. I will win the debate. Do not refer to your bible. I can justify slavery with your bible.

Who told you I can’t defend the teachings of the Church?

…and one more thing, can you justify slavery in the bible? You think you can, only because you don’t understand the bible deep enough. You don’t have any idea about typology.

The New Testament is the full flowering of the Old, so if you think you know the bible well enough…guess what…you don’t.

…and why am I not to refer to the bible? Don’t you know that the bible is the inerrant word of God? You justify your sins on the basis of worldly pleasures that is why you don’t understand spiritual things.

Matrimony is a sacrament. The full communion of husband and wife is when they “know” each other. Any good catholic understands this. You cannot just “do” it just because you feel like it…otherwise, nothing differentiates you from the animals?
Sex is holy when you give yourself fully to your spouse. It is holy when both are open to life. Masturbation accomplishes none of these.

Do you go to the tabernacle and devour on the consecrated host just because you are hungry? No…you don’t do that…that’s a disgrace. This is similar when you use sex outside the bounds of marriage…it is a grave sin.

Satisfied? Or you want the Worldly reasoning?

 

[that1dude]

Look, first let me say that I am not here to judge you. You may, in fact, not be committing a sin because you need full knowledge that the act is disordered, which, you do not.

So, I am not going to go off on your sinfulness. For one thing, I have no business assessing another man’s soul. I have enough to do for my own.

But, you are visiting a Catholic website. We Catholics do place a great deal of gravity on the edicts of the Holy See. You see, we believe that our Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. That is because that is what Jesus promised us. So, even when we don’t always understand all of the details surrounding such a position, we tend to trust the Church because we trust Christ. There is a word for that, it is called humility.

You may think that is not sensible (and you are entitled to your opinion) but we do not. This debate cannot be won because we view this from different perspectives.

I would encourage to at least try to understand the Church’s position. Really meditate on it because there really is a great deal of wisdom in it.

You will definitely be in my prayers tonight.

You say you follow the church. Who makes up the church? Men. You follow the words of fallible men. If you cannot use reason and logic to rationalize your actions and beliefs then you are bound to adopt foolish ideas. Just stop it. The worst thing is that children are involved. Teaching children that god is displeased by masturbation is an evil thing. Stop being evil.

You said “So, even when we don’t always understand all of the details surrounding such a position, we tend to trust the Church because we trust Christ.” There is as word for that, its called gullibility, and shrugging of responsibility. Take responsibility for yourself and stop deferring to a committee of humans with megalomania.

 

[nilofc]

You say you follow the church. Who makes up the church? Men. You follow the words of fallible men. If you cannot use reason and logic to rationalize your actions and beliefs then you are bound to adopt foolish ideas. Just stop it. The worst thing is that children are involved. Teaching children that god is displeased by masturbation is an evil thing. Stop being evil.

You said “So, even when we don’t always understand all of the details surrounding such a position, we tend to trust the Church because we trust Christ.” There is as word for that, its called gullibility, and shrugging of responsibility. Take responsibility for yourself and stop deferring to a committee of humans with megalomania.

The Church is composed of sinful men. But the Church is established by Christ himself. The teachings of the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit since Christ himself assured us that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. If the Church teaches that Masturbation is a grave sin…then it is.

Now prove to us that it is an evil thing to teach children that masturbation is an evil thing. Are you infallible?

Stop defending your sins. Isaiah 5:20

 

[that1dude]

The Church is composed of sinful men. But the Church is established by Christ himself. The teachings of the Church is protected by the Holy Spirit since Christ himself assured us that the gates of hell will never prevail against it. If the Church teaches that Masturbation is a grave sin…then it is.

Now prove to us that it is an evil thing to teach children that masturbation is an evil thing. Are you infallible?

Stop defending your sins. Isaiah 5:20

I am fallible. You are the one that thinks people can be infallible. You say the “Church” is infallible. What is the church but a bunch of dudes saying things. It is morally reprehensible to believe that what ANY group of people says is infallible. But I guess you have bought into this whole paradigm.

I cannot “PROVE” anything but I can give reasoned arguments which is more than you seem capable of. Masturbation hurts nobody. Masturbation is completely natural. Saying to a child that you do not want them to masturbate is just simple wrongheadedness. But actually telling them that some giant “god” in the sky disapproves or is angry, or will punish them is evil. And by evil, I mean harmful lies.

Hey mommy, I’ve masturbated and so have my friends and most of the world, and they all feel no regret or guilt. Should I feel guilt? Should I feel bad about myself? But mommy, the Bible says we do not yet have perfect knowledge of everything, until this present world passes away. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10. The imperfect knowledge we have will be replaced by the perfect. So mommy, the old men who set rules down for us Catholics are not perfect, right?

A pope wrote the Syllabus of Errors in which he condemned freedom of religion. Mommy, is this right?

 

[nilofc]

I am fallible. You are the one that thinks people can be infallible. You say the “Church” is infallible. What is the church but a bunch of dudes saying things. It is morally reprehensible to believe that what ANY group of people says is infallible. But I guess you have bought into this whole paradigm.

I cannot “PROVE” anything but I can give reasoned arguments which is more than you seem capable of. Masturbation hurts nobody. Masturbation is completely natural. Saying to a child that you do not want them to masturbate is just simple wrongheadedness. But actually telling them that some giant “god” in the sky disapproves or is angry, or will punish them is evil. And by evil, I mean harmful lies.

Hey mommy, I’ve masturbated and so have my friends and most of the world, and they all feel no regret or guilt. Should I feel guilt? Should I feel bad about myself? But mommy, the Bible says we do not yet have perfect knowledge of everything, until this present world passes away. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” 1 Corinthians 13:9-10. The imperfect knowledge we have will be replaced by the perfect. So mommy, the old men who set rules down for us Catholics are not perfect, right?

A pope wrote the Syllabus of Errors in which he condemned freedom of religion. Mommy, is this right?

Pope Pius the IX wrote the Syllabus of Errors.
Nothing is more important than saving your soul. What is wrong in pointing out the way to salvation? Maybe you should read the Syllabus of Errors, because in it you will see that nobody should be coerced in believing they do not hold on to. You got it wrong.

If you think that Pope speaking in ex cathedra can never be infalliable because he is just a man, they you grossly made Jesus into a liar. He has assured that the gates of hell will never prevail against the church but using your “reasoned arguments” you have trampled upon the authority of the church and made your own to be superior to the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church.

You do not have perfect knowledge yet (as you quoted) but God has given you the Church to point out what can kill your soul. So you cannot use that reasoning to justify your sin.

Masturbating is not natural. Having sexual urges is, but never masturbation. It is a grave sin. It doesn’t make it morally right just because the world is into that sin. Masturbation is a grave sin and you can lose your soul by it.

…and one more thing…you say that Masturbation hurts no one, it does… in fact your soul dies with it. You reduce the worth of women by taking them nothing more than sexual objects.

It is a source of embarassment since this sin kills.

 

[Joe_5859]

Use your words, your logic, and your reasoning skills to explain to me why masturbation is wrong. You can’t do it. I will win the debate. Do not refer to your bible. I can justify slavery with your bible.

Where is your well-reasoned, well-articulated, and comprehensive defense of masturbation that we may respond to it point by point?

 

[cargau]

You say you follow the church. Who makes up the church? Men. You follow the words of fallible men. If you cannot use reason and logic to rationalize your actions and beliefs then you are bound to adopt foolish ideas.

Sometimes, we accept things on faith. I am not going to try and convinvce you of anything if you expect me to “scientifically” prove it. There are many things that science cannot explain, yet we believe that they do exist. For example, I recently read where nearly 98% of the world believes in the existance of heaven. Yet science is powerless to confirm or refute the concept of heaven.

Many of the topics we have been discussing are based on the Scripture and Tradition of the Church. As I said before, this Church, I believe is guided by the third person of the Trinity. The men that lead the Church are indeed fallible people just like you and me. The Pope and/or the Magesterium may from time to time speak infallibly when it is clear that this special charism of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is at work.

This is not foolish. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for a God that so loves this world that He sent His beloved Son to die for us to provide direction and guidance to the Church that was initiated by His Son. And, if the Church that Jesus Christ set up says that masturbation (or any other act) is a sin, then it must be.

I wonder if you believe that your sense of right or wrong is superior to 2000 years of understanding promulgated by Christ’s Church???

 

[that1dude]

How about this line of reasoning,

1. 
   *]God gave the apostles, and henceforth the Church the power to bind and loose. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt 18:18).
   *]The Church, through it’s catechism, teaches that masturbation is gravely sinful.
   *]Since the Church recognizes it as gravely sinful, God recognizes it as gravely sinful.
   And notice that you cannot use that line of reasoning with smoking.

1. 
   You did not use reasoning. You just quoted lines from a book that supposedly granted infallibility. Poof! No more need to seek proof. (bind and loosed?) Nearly everyone masturbates from infancy, and would it occur to anyone that there is something wrong with it if some guy didn’t just proclaim it wrong? Seriously, if you want to claim that you use reasoned arguments, then you cannot make the logical error of “argument from authority.”
   
   Masturbation may increase fertility during intercourse.
   
   Female masturbation alters conditions in the vagina, cervix and uterus, in ways that can alter the chances of conception from intercourse, depending on the timing of the masturbation. A woman’s orgasm between one minute before and up to 45 minutes after insemination favors the chances of that sperm reaching her egg. Female masturbation can also provide protection against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and by moving debris out of the cervix.
   
   In males, masturbation flushes out old sperm with low motility from the male’s genital tract. The next ejaculate then contains more fresh sperm, which have higher chances of achieving conception during intercourse.
   
   The onus lies with you to prove that masturbation is harmful. You simply can’t do it. The best one could possibly do is assert some psychological harms and/or exhibit cases of this. This would be nearly impossible to prove, and I for one would deny that I am being hurt by it. And you will probably just appeal to your church’s teachings. And even if it was harmful, a benevolent god would not punish one for it. Your church posits an evil god. Think about it, what possible rationale would that kind of god have? Or do you just accept everything on the basis of “mysterious ways”. If you were convinced that the voice of god told you to kill you child, would you do it?

 

[that1dude]

that1dude;3591976:

You say you follow the church. Who makes up the church? Men. You follow the words of fallible men. If you cannot use reason and logic to rationalize your actions and beliefs then you are bound to adopt foolish ideas.

Sometimes, we accept things on faith. I am not going to try and convinvce you of anything if you expect me to “scientifically” prove it. There are many things that science cannot explain, yet we believe that they do exist. For example, I recently read where nearly 98% of the world believes in the existance of heaven. Yet science is powerless to confirm or refute the concept of heaven.

Many of the topics we have been discussing are based on the Scripture and Tradition of the Church. As I said before, this Church, I believe is guided by the third person of the Trinity. The men that lead the Church are indeed fallible people just like you and me. The Pope and/or the Magesterium may from time to time speak infallibly when it is clear that this special charism of the guidance of the Holy Spirit is at work.

This is not foolish. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable for a God that so loves this world that He sent His beloved Son to die for us to provide direction and guidance to the Church that was initiated by His Son. And, if the Church that Jesus Christ set up says that masturbation (or any other act) is a sin, then it must be.

I wonder if you believe that your sense of right or wrong is superior to 2000 years of understanding promulgated by Christ’s Church???

I put the number at about 85% worldwide who CLAIM to believe in an afterlife with properties and prerequisites analogous to Christian heaven. I have no idea how accurate this is. But I do know that 0% have been able to prove heaven. Obviously this is not a problem for you because blind faith is a virtue to you. Just because nonscientific world-views still persist does not mean they contain truth. Supernatural beliefs are steadily declining. I know hundreds of Catholics and most of them don’t believe the genesis stories or a world-wide flood. Pius XII and John Paul II accepted evolution. You said that “there are many things that science cannot explain, yet we believe that they do exist.” No WE don’t. Rational people might hope, or conjecture about these things, but we do not “believe” them. The humble and honest person admits that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Tiago_Paolini]

that1dude:

I put the number at about 85% worldwide who CLAIM to believe in an afterlife with properties and prerequisites analogous to Christian heaven. I have no idea how accurate this is. But I do know that 0% have been able to prove heaven.

There is a logical fallacy here: you are implying that since (according to you) nobody is able to prove, so it must be wrong. The number of people who can defend a certain position is not a valid argument to say if the position is right or wrong

that1dude:

Obviously this is not a problem for you because blind faith is a virtue to you. Just because nonscientific world-views still persist does not mean they contain truth.

First, it COULD be a problem if it weren’t a fallacy.

Second, I am just wondering if you do have in mind that you are talking with real people who do deserve respect and have feelings. You are just insulting one’s intelligence by saying that “bling faith” is a virtue to him, plus that it is a gratuitous insult since you said that only because someone holds some paradigms different from yours. I will not waste my time getting upset with it, but it was impolite anyways. Instead of replying the arguments you attacked the person who made the argument, this is ad hominem which is, by the way, another logical fallacy…

Third, the Catholic faith is far from being “blind”. Maybe you have got a wrong image of the Catholic Church, maybe some Chistians have said some wrong stuff to you (yes, there are a plenty of people who does not know much about their faith), or whatever. But if you had an in-depth knowledge about Chistianity you never would say that its faith is “blind”.

that1dude:

Supernatural beliefs are steadily declining.I know hundreds of Catholics and most of them don’t believe the genesis stories or a world-wide flood. Pius XII and John Paul II accepted evolution.

Accepting evolution does not means abandoning catholicism because the evolution theory is compatible with the catholic doctrine. By the way, I do accept the evolution theory.

The Cathecism states: “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents” (CCC 390).

So accepting a historical Adam, Eve and the original sin does not necessarily mean accepting that they and the rest of the world has begun as literally described on Genesis (6 days of 24h) or that the Earth would have about 6000 years. The Bible is not a book about Science, it is about the Salvation in Jesus Christ.

My position in this matter is that God created the Universe out of nothing (e.g. Big Bang) and then it evolved, under God guidance according with His plan, to what it is today; and that in a certain point of evolution God created the human soul (i. e., only the physical body evolved, not the soul).

I cannot see in this point neither a contradiction with the catholic doctrine nor with the scientific evidence, plus that Benedict XVI clarified that evolution does not exclude a creator. It is no surprise, because reason and faith cannot contradict each other because both of them come from God:
“Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth” (CCC 159)

So whatever is the truth about the origins of the life, a catholic should examine both the biblical truth and the factual evidence to find an explanation that is in accordance both with faith and reason because they cannot contradict each other.

By the way, this website has a article explaining this matter in more detain: catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

to be continued…

 

[Tiago_Paolini]

that1dude:

You said that “there are many things that science cannot explain, yet we believe that they do exist.” No WE don’t. Rational people might hope, or conjecture about these things, but we do not “believe” them. The humble and honest person admits that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Once more you insult the intelligence of someone who thinks differently from you, you are saying that rational people do not “believe” (boy, you do love logical fallacies!). Cargau just stated a simple fact: “there are people who believe in stuff that cannot be scientifically proven”. It is a fact no matter whether the beliefs are wrong or not or if you like it or not, but you cannot just insult someone because you do not agree.

I do find funny the way that many people talk about what is and what is not Science in spite of the fact of do not working in Science and not knowing well what it is. I am not saying that it is your case, I am saying that it is not the mine. I am a scientist (a chemist to be more exact), and I do know how Science works.

Just to very briefly summarize it, Science has tools to describe and explain how nature works, and then make predictions based on these explanations. Two very important things in Science is that it must have experimentation and its explanations must be based on the natural laws.

Now, just follow a simple logic: if God is the creator of our Universe and the natural laws (time, space, etc.), then he MUST exists separately from these stuff. It implies that God would not be limited to time, space, natural laws, the boundaries of our Universe, etc.

If the assertion of a God who created our Universe implies that He is not limited by the natural laws, and Science MUST explain stuff based just on these natural laws, then how could the scientific tools verify the assertion? It can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God simply because its tools are able to handle with stuff inside the natural laws while God is outside these laws.But not proving does not mean disproving (I can guess by your posts that you do not understand well this part), Science is just is unable to solve the question of the existence of God.

It is perfectly possible to believe in God and accept Science at the same time, and many scientists do. I recommend you to read the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, leader of the Genome project.

By the way, I do recommend you to do much more reading. Nothing of what I have said means that catholics gratuitous accept as truth everything that cannot be empirically proven, by the way the very Bible asks to be rigorous with the beliefs one accept so one will not believe in a false doctrine. But I could realize by your previous posts that you just cannot understand (or accept) that the people debating with you used some revelated truth as an argument, and you almost always replied with some harsh statement insinuating that it would be irrational.

It would be if the Catholic Church, or the whole Christianity, gratuitously accepted every supposed “revelation”. The catholic doctrine survived for 2000 years, it encountered the hardest objections and hardships, and it survived. It was enough time to develop very solid and safe concepts. But how could we know that something came from God and not some human mind? There are several approaches that have to be done, like checking the historicity of the claims, the coherence between them, the coherence inside the doctrine, etc., etc., etc.

Of course one cannot talk about everything in a discussion board, that is why I recommended you to do much more reading. I would recommend you to start by the book “Mere Christianity” of C. S. Lewis, where he make a solid case for Christianity. I would also recommend reading the books of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who are people that also make a rational defense of Christianity.

If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches or not, read the Conpendium of the Cathecism and them the very Cathecism.

When one have strong convictions that the Bible (from which the catholic doctrine is based) is valid, so it is OK to use these stuff in arguments to rationally conclude something. Or at least it would be easier to respect the people you understand and talking about something you have have knowledge.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t know how the whole other topic got introduced into this thread but I still think smoking is intrinsically disordered.

 

[byers]

Well, I think some things are also intrinsically disordered. For example hang gliding, mountain climbing and auto racing are very dangerous to one’s health. The amount of injury and death of participants is very high.

But then again it really doesn’t matter what you or I ‘think’ or rather have a personal opinion on. What matters is what the Church teaches.

 

[goofyjim]

Well, I think some things are also intrinsically disordered. For example hang gliding, mountain climbing and auto racing are very dangerous to one’s health. The amount of injury and death of participants is very high.

But then again it really doesn’t matter what you or I ‘think’ or rather have a personal opinion on. What matters is what the Church teaches.

Regardless of what the Church teaches there will be no smoking in my house or car and I will deliberately walk away in disgust from a group of smokers. I will vote to have smoking banned in public places because it has been proven to cause cancer in those who breathe it in, even second hand. The other things you mention are sports. Smoking does nothing but kill. How can that not be considered mortally sinful?

 

[cargau]

Regardless of what the Church teaches there will be no smoking in my house or car and I will deliberately walk away in disgust from a group of smokers. I will vote to have smoking banned in public places because it has been proven to cause cancer in those who breathe it in, even second hand. The other things you mention are sports. Smoking does nothing but kill. How can that not be considered mortally sinful?

I am real clear on your position on smoking. I wonder, though, if it might be a bit presumptious to declare smoking intrinsically evil especially in light of the fact that it would not be a sin you would need to deal with.

I am pretty fit and I exercise. Perhaps, it would be convenient for me to state that obesity and lack of exercise are intrinsically disordered since those too, “does nothing but kill people”!

Wouldn’t life be grand if all sins were things we didn’t need to struggle with???

 

[goofyjim]

I am real clear on your position on smoking. I wonder, though, if it might be a bit presumptious to declare smoking intrinsically evil especially in light of the fact that it would not be a sin you would need to deal with.

I am pretty fit and I exercise. Perhaps, it would be convenient for me to state that obesity and lack of exercise are intrinsically disordered since those too, “does nothing but kill people”!

Wouldn’t life be grand if all sins were things we didn’t need to struggle with???

The state of obesity could not be considered a sin because for many it may be out of their control. And it has never been proven that people die from lack of exercise. But it has been scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer and that includes second hand smoke. So again it should be considered a sin for anyone to knowing pollute their own lungs as well as anyone else’s.

 

[nilofc]

The state of obesity could not be considered a sin because for many it may be out of their control. And it has never been proven that people die from lack of exercise. But it has been scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer and that includes second hand smoke. So again it should be considered a sin for anyone to knowing pollute their own lungs as well as anyone else’s.

Good point. Although, I was thinking just now, isn’t obesity a cause of a grave sin? Gluttony? I really can’t think of any situation when one can be obese other than over consumption of food. (I maybe wrong) All other reason, like lack of sleep, neglecting exercise, genetics…are just side factors which contribute to obesity. But isn’t it that if you don’t over-eat you really can’t get that big. I define BIG as those over a hundred pounds their ideal weight.

Thanks again for discussing…

 

[Joe_5859]

The state of obesity could not be considered a sin because for many it may be out of their control. And it has never been proven that people die from lack of exercise. But it has been scientifically proven that smoking causes cancer and that includes second hand smoke. So again it should be considered a sin for anyone to knowing pollute their own lungs as well as anyone else’s.

I think that what you have said can support the argument that immoderate smoking is sinful, but it doesn’t mean that smoking is inherently sinful. One can smoke one cigarette or an occassional cigar, and I don’t think it will shorten their life at all.

Should driving a car be sinful? Cars pump smoke out into the air, too.

If I ate two boxes of twinkies a day, it would probably shorten my life, too. But I can have one every now and then and still be okay.

 

[goofyjim]

I think that what you have said can support the argument that immoderate smoking is sinful, but it doesn’t mean that smoking is inherently sinful. One can smoke one cigarette or an occassional cigar, and I don’t think it will shorten their life at all.

Should driving a car be sinful? Cars pump smoke out into the air, too.

If I ate two boxes of twinkies a day, it would probably shorten my life, too. But I can have one every now and then and still be okay.

Tobacco is a drug. It is not necessary and just happens to be an approved one. Twinkies aren’t the healthiest but at least they ar still food which could never be considered immoral unless overdone. If we’re going to keep tobacco legal and moral then the same could be said about some other drugs, which I am not advocating BTW.

 

[Joe_5859]

Tobacco is a drug. It is not necessary and just happens to be an approved one. Twinkies aren’t the healthiest but at least they ar still food which could never be considered immoral unless overdone. If we’re going to keep tobacco legal and moral then the same could be said about some other drugs, which I am not advocating BTW.

Would you say the same thing about alcohol as you do about tobacco?