The immaculate misconception

[AngryAtheist8]

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

Anyone engaged in sex is treating their partner as a sexual object to a certain extent.

So what?

Do you believe celibacy is the ideal and most people should be faulted for not living up to that?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Its worth noting that the countries today which are most opposed to Western *hedonism *(contraception, pornography, free love, etc.) the Muslim nations, are also the ones that despise and dehumanize women (both on a legal and cultural level) the most.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Dead is dead.
You rot either way:shrug:

No wonder you’re Angry, nothing to look forward to.

Listen, when you pass and find out you aren’t dead, call out to the God you aren’t sure exists. We don’t want you getting lost over there.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Why?

If the default setting of human beings is damnation (thanks to Original Sin) shouldn’t devout Catholics not breed at all?

You’re just exposing more people to the very strong possibility of hellfire every time you have a baby.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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.

That’s not the Church’s view. If you want to know the Church’s view, you might try the Catechism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Listen, when you pass and find out you aren’t dead, call out to the God you aren’t sure exists. We don’t want you getting lost over there.

Some one recently told Thunderf00t the same thing, only it was Allah that it is presumed he would meet (and I am assuming you are talking about Yahweh).

 

[LittleSoldier]

God is the owner so he has a right to treat his property however he likes then?

Yes, He does, but remember that God is Love. Anything God does to us is done in love. We may not understand it, we may even suffer, but absolutely everything that God does to us is done in love. And perfection.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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!

I think it’s way more complicated than what you are stating here.

What do you mean by “horrid self indulgences?” Do you mean that a husband who loves his wife immensely should not desire to increase their bonding by making love? That he should not wish to show his love? Is a husband and wife loving each other through a process created by a loving God a “horrid self indulgence?” Is sex bad?

Is everyone who uses contraception selfish? Even those who are not Catholic and don’t know why the Church teaches that it is wrong? Even those who *are *Catholic and don’t know why the Church teaches that it is wrong?

How do you know that the Christ won’t listen to the “meaningless arguments defending contraception that [you’ve] read on here”?

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Some one recently told Thunderf00t the same thing, only it was Allah that it is presumed he would meet (and I am assuming you are talking about Yahweh).

There’s only one God, regardless of the language.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why?

If the default setting of human beings is damnation (thanks to Original Sin) shouldn’t devout Catholics not breed at all?

You’re just exposing more people to the very strong possibility of hellfire every time you have a baby.

May I remind you that Jesus died for our sins? You use the word “possibility” and that is not the same as “certainty.” When devout Catholics have a baby they don’t just abandon her! They foster her in an atmosphere of love, raise her as a member of the Church, and try to do the best they can to ensure that their child will not be one of those who refuses to choose God.

Our obligations to our children do not end at birth. And our hope is that everyone will become a saint.

 

[LittleSoldier]

That’s not the Church’s view. If you want to know the Church’s view, you might try the Catechism.

That is a *very *good idea!

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

Misery-guts?

 

[tonyrey]

]So you would advise people to ignore the commandments not to kill, steal, commit adultery and bear false witness against their neighbour?

No response!

You haven’t explained why your lack of religion exempts you from total dedication to **your own point of view **and the rules and principles you command and endorse - without any need for self-restraint at all!

No response!

Do you recognise any moral authority apart from yourself?

                        No response!

Why would I have to commit myself to anything just because I don’t believe in the supernatural?

That is the point! You don’t have to commit yourself to anything else whatsoever - but how can you avoid committing yourself to yourself?!

Do you really think that a celestial monarch setting the rules and moral anarchy are the only options?

What are the others - apart from arbitrary rules or moral laws plucked out of thin air?

 

[tonyrey]

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!

Rather crude… Have you read the forum rules? Or do you wish to disregard them?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, He does, but remember that God is Love. Anything God does to us is done in love. We may not understand it, we may even suffer, but absolutely everything that God does to us is done in love. And perfection.

According to Scripture God is also often Wrathful and Jealous too.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

May I remind you that Jesus died for our sins? You use the word “possibility” and that is not the same as “certainty.” When devout Catholics have a baby they don’t just abandon her! They foster her in an atmosphere of love, raise her as a member of the Church, and try to do the best they can to ensure that their child will not be one of those who refuses to choose God.

Our obligations to our children do not end at birth. And our hope is that everyone will become a saint.

Even if Jesus did die for our sins so what?

God also created the system where sins are virtually impossible to avoid and deserving of damnation. These are not the actions of a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful being.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

have to

commit yourself to anything else whatsoever - but how can you avoid committing yourself to yourself?!

What are the others - apart from arbitrary rules or moral laws plucked out of thin air?

These were not good questions.

They were simple and designed to be insulting by implying that because I don’t believe in the supernatural I have no moral code. You would not have asked a fellow theist such questions.

For the record, my own moral code is based on the law and my own personal standards.

 

[Sair]

Rather crude… Have you read the forum rules? Or do you wish to disregard them?

Considering the nature of the post to which this was a response, I suspect I merely gave the sentiment its appropriate expression. I apologise if the language was more offensive than usual.

 

[Sair]

tonyrey;8469777:

These were not good questions.

They were simple and designed to be insulting by implying that because I don’t believe in the supernatural I have no moral code. You would not have asked a fellow theist such questions.

For the record, my own moral code is based on the law and my own personal standards.

The last bastion of the theistic believer, when it comes to constructing evidentiary arguments for the existence of their god, is to cite morality. It hasn’t been thoroughly explored by science, much less decisively explained. In any case, no explanation based upon natural proclivities and the necessary behavioural restraint that comes with social living is likely to satisfy those who think human morality is some kind of mystical, metaphysical realm that sets us apart from the rest of nature, and is somehow a trump card that proves they were right all along. Therefore those of us who reject belief in a personal god are accused of having arbitrary or no morality. It might seem insulting to us, but a little unpacking reveals it’s actually insulting to those who believe that without a god telling them what to do and how to think and behave, they would be nothing but brutes.

 

[domandcarols]