The immaculate misconception

[mark_a]

And this is the world your supposedly loving God deliberately created (remember he’s all-knowing AND all-powerful). A world where everyone deserves to be tortured forever after they die.

A world where that is the natural result of people just doing what comes naturally.

I’m curious about the difference between your screen name and your religion:

Religion: Agnostic

Thanks.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There’s the expression: die like a dog. No one shrugs that off. Any human being who is put down like a dog,even to light classical, is not a happy person Men and women constantly look ahead; dogs, only to their next meal, as far as we know.

Dead is dead.
You rot either way:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

God is the creator. He treats each creature in accordance with its nature. He treats human beings in accordance with their nature, as intelligent creatures. That is, as beings who have the ability to perceive things in way different from other animals. He owns us as he owns each minute particle and wave of matter. But there is something else: Something that enables us to move independently, in a way that things of comparable mass cannot move, and without lifting a finger. “Man is a reed, but a thinking reed,” as Pascal said.

So you can’t answer the question directly then.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

See, this is where you err. No where did I claim I was going to engage in religious apologetics. You asked for the Catholic view on a question, and I gasp gave you an outline of the Catholic views. Supporting those views with religious apologetics was not part of the question.

Here is the digest version: you were attacking an article of faith (i.e., the inerrancy of Scripture), and I told you why it is foolish to do so. To a Catholic, your attempts are utterly gutted by a Catholic understanding of faith. My job was not to convince you our views, **but to explain them and show why your point is totally neutered given them./**QUOTE]

That’s only true from a certain narrow Catholic perspective.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m curious about the difference between your screen name and your religion:

Thanks.

Its hard to summarize but I’ll try.

Basically I cannot be sure that their isn’t any sort of supernatural force that created and/or guided the universe (because you cannot prove a negative). But I usually describe myself as an atheist because the major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) seem like obvious BS to me.

 

[mark_a]

Its hard to summarize but I’ll try.

Basically I cannot be sure that their isn’t any sort of supernatural force that created and/or guided the universe (because you cannot prove a negative). But I usually describe myself as an atheist because the major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) seem like obvious BS to me.

Thanks for the reply.

Only the Abrahamic religions? What about the “etc.”?

 

[RobbyS]

You sound so Puritan

Nothing can be tolerated unless its productive then?
There is no room in moral Christian life for leisure or entertainment?

First of all " mercenary" means strictly for the money or some ungenerous thing. A mercenary soldier is" a gun for hire." A prostitute is a woman/man who rents out her/his body. A pornographer is one creates “whores’art” (that’s what the origin of the word. That does not mean that a mercenary may not have a noble heart. The "Ten Thousand Greek soldiers in the Anabasis were certainly that. The Empress Theodora began as a courtesan. The pronographer may sometimes be a good artist who has a good sense of the erotic. But in general, there is no nobility in what they do. Most pornography is crass, unartful, All it wants to do is arouse a man, in the same way that a prostitute would douse herself in perfume, or more crassly, perform oral sex on him. “A quicky.” is the desired thing. There is a reason why its is condemned even by a public saturate in sex. Its motive is bad, its result seldom good, and it seldom tells the truth about people. Unless, you think that at bottom, people are just clever apes. But, again, of course there are exceptions. A great artist can make something beautiful out of the most base materials.

Re: an earlier exchange. Yes, actors create illusions. but a good actor “re-creates”
a character. He takes the script, reads it, and imagines a person, much as a scientist take the evidence before him and “imagines” the substance behind it all.
Take an actor like Alec Guiness: he adds so much, so many little things, just to persuade you that you are looking at a real human being. Like another actor you may not have heard of, Michael Lonsdale. In a very long scene I saw recently, starring Guiness, he brings a character to life, in the most amazing way. It is called “Smiley’s People,” I think. and it is very late in the series, toward the end. Check it out on Netflix.

As to that jibe about Puritans. The real one were actually quite sensual ,people. Sharkespeare’s daughter married one. But do read Perry Miller of you want to get beyond the stereotypes such as the ones in the Scarlett Letter.

 

[BigFellaMick]

contraception is just justification for selfish people interested only in gratifying themselves through horrid self indulgences. I would not like to live like such a glutton and have to face the Lord. Christ won’t listen to the meaningless arguments defending contraception that I’ve read on here. He will crush them in an instant. Christ’s will be done!

 

[Sair]

contraception is just justification for selfish people interested only in gratifying themselves through horrid self indulgences. I would not like to live like such a glutton and have to face the Lord. Christ won’t listen to the meaningless arguments defending contraception that I’ve read on here. He will crush them in an instant. Christ’s will be done!

No doubt in your mind, is there? Sex is only for having babies, dammit, so get out and have them or keep your legs together if you know what’s good for you!

I would not like to live like such a small-minded, repressive, judgemental misery-guts, whether there’s anything after this life or not.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

contraception is just justification for selfish people interested only in gratifying themselves through horrid self indulgences. I would not like to live like such a glutton and have to face the Lord. Christ won’t listen to the meaningless arguments defending contraception that I’ve read on here. He will crush them in an instant. Christ’s will be done!

(underlining is my own).
Now that’s an interesting view. Would it still be so “horrid” if a married couple had sex with contraceptives in moderation instead of “indulging”?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No doubt in your mind, is there? Sex is only for having babies, dammit, so get out and have them or keep your legs together if you know what’s good for you!

I would not like to live like such a small-minded, repressive, judgemental misery-guts, whether there’s anything after this life or not.

Let me ask you a question. Is it right to use people as objects?

 

[Spock]

See, this is where you err. No where did I claim I was going to engage in religious apologetics. You asked for the Catholic view on a question, and I gasp gave you an outline of the Catholic views. Supporting those views with religious apologetics was not part of the question.

Here is the digest version: you were attacking an article of faith (i.e., the inerrancy of Scripture), and I told you why it is foolish to do so. To a Catholic, your attempts are utterly gutted by a Catholic understanding of faith. My job was not to convince you our views, but to explain them and show why your point is totally neutered given them.

Your “answer” was just evasion. And in a very good sense, it is the usual “catholic” answer: evasion! Observe: “question: what would you as a catholic do, if God ordered it…?”. The so-called “answer”: “but this is an invalid question, so I refuse to answer”.

Now I will help you, and show two possible answers:

1. Given by a true dyed-in-the wool-orthodox: "Of course I would go ahead and kill, murder, maim, rape and torture, if God would order me to do it. I would have no idea why God orders such a behavior, but I would trust that God knows best, and these deeds further God’s great plan, and whenever it pleases God, he could explain that to me. In the meantime, it is my duty to obey and not to question God. But, I wish to add a disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order any of these things”.
2. Given by an “everyday” believer: "No, I would not do it. God declared that those actions are unacceptable and immoral, and if God changes his mind, he is not worthy to obey any more. If God would break his own commandments, then those commandments are not absolute. I would forego my salvation with my disobedience, but my conscience does not allow me to follow such horrible commands. But I also add the disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order anything of this kind”.

Now, you see, here are two possible catholic answers: both give a disclaimer, but neither attempts to avoid the answer. Are these answers also “caricatures”?

 

[Spock]

As am I. It might be worthwhile to add that our agreement on many things does not come as a surprise. Both the thinking atheist, like you (as opposed to the doctrinaire one, like a Pol Pot or Kim Jung Il) and the traditional Catholic, like me, have this in common: whatever our disagreement on who or what is or is not God, we both refuse to worship the government or the capitalist.

Cheers!

Well, since I do not worship anything, it is a “given” that we agree here.

Cheers!

 

[Sair]

Let me ask you a question. Is it right to use people as objects?

I don’t believe so. But I also don’t believe that the only way to avoid objectification in sexual interaction is to make sure that pregnancy might result from that act. If anything, I consider the Catholic approach (amongst others who hold a similar reproductively-focussed ethic) to be an objectification of the sex act, in that it must be potentially ‘productive’ if it is to have any meaning or value whatsoever.

I find it odd, as I have previously indicated, that pleasure is not recognised by Catholics and other morally repressive religious folks as a good end in and of itself. I also find it odd that the pursuit of pleasure is construed as a fundamentally selfish practice. We are empathetic beings, capable of appreciating the pleasure of others as our own, and capable of understanding that our own pleasure is diminished by the unhappiness of others. Sex that is not directed towards reproduction can most certainly be directed to other worthy ends - the enjoyment of shared pleasure, the reinforcement of a loving bond - none of which imply selfishness.

What’s more, those who advocate that all sexual activity must be open to reproduction evince a certain naive assurance that, a) God will provide for all those children born to those who lack the wherewithal to raise them appropriately and b) that humans are wired to be content with sex as most of the animal kingdom practices it - infrequently and only for the purpose of reproduction. Neither of these beliefs have any supporting evidence.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t believe so. But I also don’t believe that the only way to avoid objectification in sexual interaction is to make sure that pregnancy might result from that act. If anything, I consider the Catholic approach (amongst others who hold a similar reproductively-focussed ethic) to be an objectification of the sex act, in that it must be potentially ‘productive’ if it is to have any meaning or value whatsoever.

Not simply productive, but open to the possibility of bringing a new person into the world so that this new person can share in eternal life and happiness with God. Thats the fundamental purpose of human sexuality according to the Christian teaching. To bring new life in the world is an act of love. There is no objectification there, but rather this is the dignification of human sexuality in that two people are coming together to participate in a creative act of love; as opposed to two people coming together to use each-other for pleasure, undervaluing the intrinsic worth of a living person by effectively reducing themselves to the same level as a dildo, a mere sex object.

 

[Sair]

Not simply productive, but open to the possibility of bringing a new person into the world so that this new person can share in eternal life and happiness with God. Thats the fundamental purpose of human sexuality according to the Christian teaching. To bring new life in the world is an act of love. There is no objectification there, but rather this is the dignification of human sexuality in that two people are coming together to participate in a creative act of love; as opposed to two people coming together to use each-other for pleasure, undervaluing the intrinsic worth of a living person by effectively reducing themselves to the same level as a dildo, a mere sex object.

Do you appreciate the difference between using an inanimate object for sexual gratification and sharing pleasure with another thinking, feeling being? If you did, you would not compare them. There is far more to sexual intimacy than just scratching an itch.

Why does sexual sharing between lovers require ‘dignification’ through reproduction? It seems you consider sexual pleasure intrinsically selfish, only redeemed by focussing upon a third - and fourth - party, in the form of a potential child and a God who requires the gratification of intervention in private actions.

What unequivocal evidence do you have for eternal life anyway? And why is bringing another human into the world an intrinsic good?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First of all " mercenary" means strictly for the money or some ungenerous thing. A mercenary soldier is" a gun for hire." A prostitute is a woman/man who rents out her/his body. A pornographer is one creates “whores’art” (that’s what the origin of the word. That does not mean that a mercenary may not have a noble heart. The "Ten Thousand Greek soldiers in the Anabasis were certainly that. The Empress Theodora began as a courtesan. The pronographer may sometimes be a good artist who has a good sense of the erotic. But in general, there is no nobility in what they do. Most pornography is crass, unartful, All it wants to do is arouse a man, in the same way that a prostitute would douse herself in perfume, or more crassly, perform oral sex on him. “A quicky.” is the desired thing. There is a reason why its is condemned even by a public saturate in sex. Its motive is bad, its result seldom good, and it seldom tells the truth about people. Unless, you think that at bottom, people are just clever apes. But, again, of course there are exceptions. A great artist can make something beautiful out of the most base materials.

Re: an earlier exchange. Yes, actors create illusions. but a good actor “re-creates”
a character. He takes the script, reads it, and imagines a person, much as a scientist take the evidence before him and “imagines” the substance behind it all.
Take an actor like Alec Guiness: he adds so much, so many little things, just to persuade you that you are looking at a real human being. Like another actor you may not have heard of, Michael Lonsdale. In a very long scene I saw recently, starring Guiness, he brings a character to life, in the most amazing way. It is called “Smiley’s People,” I think. and it is very late in the series, toward the end. Check it out on Netflix.

**As to that jibe about Puritans. The real one were actually quite sensual ,people. **Sharkespeare’s daughter married one. But do read Perry Miller of you want to get beyond the stereotypes such as the ones in the Scarlett Letter.

That is flat out wrong.
The Puritans were a relatively grim and dour people who thought fun and (especially) public entertainment distracted people too much from God. That’s why they banned dancing, drinking, theatre, and gambling when they briefly (from a historical perspective) took over England (source: faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/glorious_revolution.htm).

Its also worth noting that they were rabidly anti-Catholic.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

contraception is just justification for selfish people interested only in gratifying themselves through horrid self indulgences. I would not like to live like such a glutton and have to face the Lord. Christ won’t listen to the meaningless arguments defending contraception that I’ve read on here. He will crush them in an instant. Christ’s will be done!

So the less sexual you are the holier you are then?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No doubt in your mind, is there? Sex is only for having babies, dammit, so get out and have them or keep your legs together if you know what’s good for you!

I would not like to live like such a small-minded, repressive, judgemental misery-guts, whether there’s anything after this life or not.

Catholic theology on sex is somewhat more sophisticated than that at this point. But its undeniable that the Church has always taught that the primary purpose of sex is (or at least should be) procreation.

Its also undeniable that many prominent Churchmen (including some Church Fathers and saints) talked about sex as though it were no more than a necessary evil at best.

 

[Warrenton]

Well, since I do not worship anything, it is a “given” that we agree here.

Cheers!

I believe it, based on the overall tenor of your comments - not only because you claim to be an atheist. Many people claim to be their own masters, but really haven’t a thought of their own.

To my thinking, if a person accepts the trends and fashions of the world without criticism, that is worship regardless of how one describes it. It is one of the ills that representative democracy is prone to, and probably accounts for its antipathy toward popular dictatorships. With the latter, it like looking at a picture, with the former, it is like looking in a mirror. In both cases, the attention is diverted from the wider world, or the inner one.

Have a great weekend!