So what if that violates the Natural Law?

[tm30]

I have no idea why you think this follows from anything I’ve said.

Kindness sometimes means expecting people to do things that don’t make them feel good. Your version of kindness (let everyone do as they please) often leads to more suffering, not less.

Do you believe there are decent human beings – in your understanding of the term – who reject natural law? Or is that an impossibility?

That’s an impossibility. All of our actions must be geared toward one single end – the salvation of souls. Whether it’s in our daily work, the raising of children, or, yes, our personal suffering, all of it must have the good of our neighbor (i.e., their salvation) in mind. There is no decency in being indifferent to the salvation of your neighbor. If a person rejects the Natural Law, they reject God. And if they reject God, they cannot help their neighbor come to know and love God.

I don’t expect you to agree, but there you have it.

 

[tm30]

I have no idea why you think this follows from anything I’ve said.

Do you believe there are decent human beings – in your understanding of the term – who reject natural law? Or is that an impossibility?

I was hoping you’d answer the question I posed (below).

“Very decent human beings” by whose standard? Yours? Theirs? And where are you getting your standard for “decency”? And by whose authority is that standard established? Huffington Post? Jon Stewart? Perez HIlton?

 

[spencelo]

That’s an impossibility. All of our actions must be geared toward one single end – the salvation of souls. Whether it’s in our daily work, the raising of children, or, yes, our personal suffering, all of it must have the good of our neighbor (i.e., their salvation) in mind. There is no decency in being indifferent to the salvation of your neighbor. If a person rejects the Natural Law, they reject God. And if they reject God, they cannot help their neighbor come to know and love God.

I don’t expect you to agree, but there you have it.

Suppose an atheist risks his life by entering a burning building to save a small child. Although he rejects God, would you say that’s a very decent thing he did?

 

[FAH]

I don’t know what “ordered” means in this context – “design,” at least, was clearer. I would agree that male and female reproductive organs enable a certain result to occur (conception), if that is one’s goal. But I don’t see any good argument for thinking that the goal or purpose of reproductive organs is conception (except perhaps in the limited biological sense)

But this assumes that there is only one “order.” Why can’t there be multiple “orders” – for instance, pleasure? If our reproductive organs are also ordered for pleasure, then homosexual acts – in fact, any sexual activity – don’t violate this order.

I don’t believe in God, and I don’t see what is “unnatural” or immoral about homosexual relations.

Maybe THIS link would be helpful to you. Its off a Catholic blog and uses the analogy of an eyeball.

 

[spencelo]

I was hoping you’d answer the question I posed (below).

Since you apparently have a very idiosyncratic understanding of “decency,” I obviously won’t be able to answer your question to your satisfaction. In my view, the standards of moral decency are predicated on the standards of goodness and morality – doing good and complying with the requirements of morality = decent human being. Of course, “decency” is a matter of degree; people can be decent in some respects and not in others. Many people are, on the whole, decent, even though they may be lacking in some respects.

 

[manualman]

Then it appears you are saying that stable same-sex relationships are stable in spite of the “disorder” of homosexuality – that if it weren’t for other factors, “homosexuality” would surely bring ruin to every same-sex couple.

What is your evidence that the “nature” of a homosexual union is “ordered towards” self-destruction?

You’re still straining to define people solely by their sexual proclivities. Humans are a little deeper than that, thanks. Those ‘other factors’ happen to include their innate human dignity and the fact that they were created in the image and likeness of God. Not the small detail you imply. But our vices do tend to tug us away from God, I’ll agree with you to that extent. This is why catholicism speaks of gay sexual contact as “disordered.” It is not ordered to the relationship design that God constructed humanity to function under.

It’s been a long time since I read a philosophy book, but I think the word for this is ‘teleology.’ I’m not aware from where you are coming from philosophically, but if you are a secular humanist, you probably reject teleologies as you reject the idea that the universe is ordered to the purposes of its Creator. Christians generally believe that as God created the universe and set man as its crown jewel (made in His image and likeness), that things that are morally good produce good results and those that are morally bad produce bad results.

Now we are at full circle to where I began posting in this thread in that the statistics on blatantly self destructive behaviors in the homosexual community are vivid (and not seriously disputed by gay activists). Those who engage in homosexual contact are vastly more likely (at the population level, please leave anecdotes out of this) to abuse drugs, be depressed, be unfaithful to their partner, be a party to domestic violence (on both sides), etc. Historically, gay activists have not disputed these facts, but have blamed them on the oppression they have received from society at large (some of which was indeed beyond the pale, btw). But watch and see what happens as ‘progressive’ get their way. Society will cease its disapproval and many elements will openly celebrate gay behavior and inclinations. Will the self destructive association between gay sexual activity and other self-destructive behaviors decline? I know that it won’t. But if you don’t believe in teleologies (much less revelations from God), you’re just going to have to see for yourself. Keep your eyes open and see if I’m right. Because that’s the direction our society is going, and going fast.

 

[tm30]

Suppose an atheist risks his life by entering a burning building to save a small child. Although he rejects God, would you say that’s a very decent thing he did?

By doing so, he is responding to (not rejecting) the Natural Law, which demands that the strong should protect the weak. Therefore, it’s one of the highest acts of decency. A good example of why abortion is so grossly immoral.

EDIT: In fact, by responding to the Natural Law, this particular atheist has accidentally responded to God Himself.

 

[manualman]

Do you believe there are decent human beings – in your understanding of the term – who reject natural law? Or is that an impossibility?

Great question and one that often trips people up.

There is a large temptation to slip into a mindset in which one believes that God grants salvation to those who discern theology correctly and reject false teachings. This is a trap. Theology and doctrine are means, not ends.

God hasn’t given us revelation so as to confine himself, he has given it to liberate us from our failings so that we can be more like him. He’s given it so that we can desire Grace to achieve that transformation. That desire is built into all of us.

I’m pretty sure the church teaches that God judges us based on the way that each individual responds to the offerings of Grace that he has received in life. I suspect (my opinion, not necessary official church teaching!) that this means that many people who have rejected Jesus (as they understand him) by name and reject ‘natural law’ according to their own understanding, really DON’T reject the larger reality of what those things are. They’ve rejected caricatures and may yet joyfully receive the giver of life when/if the opportunity arises. In many cases that acceptance is already occuring even when many of the choices of their life are still sinful.

As I’ve said, humans are deeper than we often suspect we are. It comes from being created in the image of God.

 

[spencelo]

Maybe THIS link would be helpful to you. Its off a Catholic blog and uses the analogy of an eyeball.

The article raises just raises more questions, and it doesn’t address the “multiple-ordering” possibility. Why can’t our reproductive organs be both ordered for conception and procreation? The article doesn’t say.

As for the eyeball analogy, I’m unimpressed. The article appears to confuse the purpose of a thing – what something was designed for – and the function that that thing can serve. For example, although the purpose of a chair is for sitting, it can serve the function of a weapon. “Purpose” implies a conscious designer, so if the eyeball has a purpose - rather than a mere function - then it has a designer. But nonbelievers (like myself) reject the notion that our bodies have been “designed” – at most, we’d say that our bodies can serve certain functions. If Natural Law is meant to appeal to nonbelievers, it is obviously question begging to assume that our biological structures have been “designed.”

“Simply put, the male body is sexually made for the female body.”

Made for by whom? That’s the problem. It just isn’t “common sense” to me that our bodies were “made” by any one in the first place.

 

[tm30]

Since you apparently have a very idiosyncratic understanding of “decency,” I obviously won’t be able to answer your question to your satisfaction. In my view, the standards of moral decency are predicated on the standards of goodness and morality – doing good and complying with the requirements of morality = decent human being. Of course, “decency” is a matter of degree; people can be decent in some respects and not in others. Many people are, on the whole, decent, even though they may be lacking in some respects.

I’m not asking you about my definition. I’m asking you about yours. How do you define “decency”? Is it always decent to prevent pain? Is it decent to give complete freedom to individuals to self-destruct?

Catholics believe there is absolute, objective moral truth, which is conveyed in the Natural Law of our hearts, but has been explained and enriched and given to man for the sake of his salvation through the Old and New Testaments. At the least, every person can respond to the Natural Law. Even animals respect the Natural Law particular to their species. Thus, by rejecting the Natural Law, a human being makes himself even lower than the beasts.

 

[spencelo]

You’re still straining to define people solely by their sexual proclivities. Humans are a little deeper than that, thanks.

No, I’m straining to understand your claim that homosexuality is ordered towards self-destruction.

Now we are at full circle to where I began posting in this thread in that the statistics on blatantly self destructive behaviors in the homosexual community are vivid (and not seriously disputed by gay activists).

I haven’t seen those statistics, but it’s fallacious to conclude that homosexuality as such is the cause of self-destructive behaviors from the mere fact that many homosexuals have engaged in self-destructive behaviors.

But watch and see what happens as ‘progressive’ get their way. Society will cease its disapproval and many elements will openly celebrate gay behavior and inclinations. Will the self destructive association between gay sexual activity and other self-destructive behaviors decline? I know that it won’t.

That’s because you believe that homosexual acts, in themselves, make self-destructive behaviors more likely to result. But what’s the evidence for that claim?

 

[spencelo]

By doing so, he is responding to (not rejecting) the Natural Law, which demands that the strong should protect the weak. Therefore, it’s one of the highest acts of decency. A good example of why abortion is so grossly immoral.

EDIT: In fact, by responding to the Natural Law, this particular atheist has accidentally responded to God Himself.

So you claim, but I suppose that’s a debate for another day

 

[spencelo]

I’m not asking you about my definition. I’m asking you about yours. How do you define “decency”?

I already provided a rough definition: doing good and abiding by the requirements of morality.

Is it always decent to prevent pain?

No.

Is it decent to give complete freedom to individuals to self-destruct?

I don’t really know how to answer that without a specific example.

 

[manualman]

That’s because you believe that homosexual acts, in themselves, make self-destructive behaviors more likely to result. But what’s the evidence for that claim?

Sounds like the Phillip Morris defense to me. You can almost indefinitely try to poke holes in the reasons that correlation strongly suggests causation after a certain threshold is passed. But it does reach a point of absurdity.

I suppose there are still those who disbelieve that smoking causes cancer and do so by pointing out potential alternate explanations for the overwhelming correlation. In the 60’s Morris may have had a point that the research wasn’t conclusive and alternate explanations existed. But nobody who really looked at the issue was really fooled. Just those who wanted to be fooled so they could smoke. Unfortunately, that was a LOT of people. This is the same thing. Watch and see what happens in the next decade. Yours is this generation’s Phillip Morris argument.

 

[spencelo]

This is the same thing. Watch and see what happens in the next decade. Yours is this generation’s Phillip Morris argument.

Really, the same thing? Where has that been established?

 

[manualman]

Really, the same thing? Where has that been established?

Same way it was established that smoking causes cancer in the 1960’s: dramatic correlation. Guys like you objected that there might be other explanations and the truth was obscured for decades, and countless lives were ruined needlessly.

No thanks. Go look at the numbers yourself. It’s not a mild correlation between gay activity and other self destrictive behaviors. It’s large. I’m not going to do your research for you. This correlation isn’t controversial (though the causes of course are). Look it up for yourself.

 

[spencelo]

Same way it was established that smoking causes cancer in the 1960’s: dramatic correlation. Guys like you objected that there might be other explanations and the truth was obscured for decades, and countless lives were ruined needlessly.

No thanks. Go look at the numbers yourself. It’s not a mild correlation between gay activity and other self destrictive behaviors. It’s large. I’m not going to do your research for you. This correlation isn’t controversial (though the causes of course are). Look it up for yourself.

Well again, correlation doesn’t equal causation, and my understanding is that there are many *plausible *causes - other than mere sexual activity - to explain the data. One possible cause is stigmatization and hatred towards homosexuals – please don’t deny that it doesn’t exist. In a society where gay relationships are not, on the whole, accepted, it’s not surprising at all that many gays and lesbians would engage in self-destructive behaviors.

 

[manualman]

Well again, correlation doesn’t equal causation, and my understanding is that there are many *plausible *causes - other than mere sexual activity - to explain the data. One possible cause is stigmatization and hatred towards homosexuals – please don’t deny that it doesn’t exist. In a society where gay relationships are not, on the whole, accepted, it’s not surprising at all that many gays and lesbians would engage in self-destructive behaviors.

If you’d read my posts you would know that I don’t doubt it exists. But the phenomenon doesn’t change in cultures friendlier to the gay lifestyle, such as Amsterdam. Much like the smoking issue, I’m sure you’ll need several decades of proof before seeing it. Decades in which countless people will suffer the consequences of abandoning the fruit of millenia of civilizational wisdom.

Good luck and keep your eyes open.

 

[tm30]

I already provided a rough definition: doing good and abiding by the requirements of morality.

Who decides what the requirements of morality are? There are plenty of people who might argue that it would be exceptionally moral to aggressively reduce the population of the world (by terminating the diseased and handicapped) to combat “global warming” and depletion of natural resources. Are they right?

 

[spencelo]

Who decides what the requirements of morality are?

We decide – based on rationality and reflection. How else do you propose to figure out the requirements of morality?

There are plenty of people who might argue that it would be exceptionally moral to aggressively reduce the population of the world (by terminating the diseased and handicapped) to combat “global warming” and depletion of natural resources. Are they right?

Probably not. I’d like to know their arguments and why they think that.