M
Montalban
Guest
So what? Where does it say anything different to what I’ve said?
I said the church teaches natural law morality on the issue of contraception. It odes.
- Status
I said the church teaches natural law morality on the issue of contraception. It odes.
M
Montalban
Guest
Gleick doesn’t refute Newton. And your retort shows little understanding of chaos. When I say ‘naturally suspended’ I mean that the ball didn’t naturally come to be 1.5 metres above the ground at the beginning of the experiment. A person picked it up and is holding it.
A person who has thought about it, in order to achieve an ends interferes in the process, albeit at the beginning. Once he releases the ball, ‘natural laws’ takes over.
This was an analogy for the sexual act. The couple instigate the process and then nature takes over, but nature doesn’t make the man’s semen enter the woman without the man and the woman being an active particpant in it, and as they’re an active particpant in it, then it’s not a wholly natural process. And, just as it might seem valid for a man to start a process, so must he therefore be able to interfere in it - otherwise you’re saying it’s only valid if he causes the process to start - and you’ve not shown why this limitation should be in place.
:yawn:
Lions don’t plan like people do. Unless you’re now going to argue we’re that similar!?!?
Please at least learn something about chaos theory before you respond to it!
M
Montalban
Guest
Unless you think that we’re nothing but animals then yes it has everything to do with it.
Because we are separate from the animals, because God created us masters of all we survey then what we plan is not natural, but artificial.
It’s as natural as a rabbit dying after it’s been caught in a trap a hunter’s laid out for it.
M
Montalban
Guest
In your anger you missed this bit that you yourself cited
I’ve hightlighted it for you
That is God has given us a ‘natural order’ to have sex which leads to having children and intererence in that is wrong.
That in no way means people have to have sex. However if they do, the natural outcome is usually to have children.
M
Montalban
Guest
"Montalban:
john ennis:
“You” would be the person I’m addressing.
When you have sex there’s a ‘natural’ outcome possible - which is to have children. If you interfere in that, to prevent that possible outcome, you’re interfering in the ‘natural order’ and it’s therefore wrong. That is church teaching based on Natural Law.
The Church argues it’s wrong because it interferes in nature - against the natural law God created. That is what I said, and have evidenced and which you now here seem to glean.
J
JFonseka
Guest
When dealing with when gravity exists, it’s to do with the movement, natural suspension only proves that gravity does exist, because there is no such thing as natural suspension in the case of a tennis ball on earth, unless the tennis ball happens to have magnetic implements and is affected by a magnetic field. Gleick may very well not have refuted Newton, however your largely lacking summary of Gleick’s theories probably have, and yawning away at basic physics only furthers your irrationality in this whole argument
There is no process if the ball was on the floor resting, there is a demonstration that GRAVITY EXISTS, by lifting it up and following Newton’s 1st law, read up on it. It goes exactly in line with Newton’s laws, UNLESS ACTED on by an external force, or unless you wish to come down to UNSW and argue with the physics lecturers, perhaps they can englighten you on chaos theory as well, reading into metaphysics without basic physic knowledge is a mistake, whether you know basic physics or not is highly doubtful here considering your little summary defies the 1st law of motion.
Is this really difficult to fathom for you? Sex is a natural act, so I don’t know what you mean by nature takes over after the couple ‘instigates’ which is a flawed premise once again. Sex is a natural act, for it occurs in nature. Can we get that cleared? Ok, thanks, so your first two lines go no where.
The rest of your statement in the above quote just flies elsewhere, we are discussing why the NFP method is ‘not’ or ‘is’ natural. It’s natural BECAUSE it is using the ‘natural’ cycle of the woman which is dependent on the time of the month and etc which isn’t artificially altered.
Reminiscent of a 7th grader’s actions, this is not the only time you act like a little kid whem people disprove you with common sense.
Yea, I’m going to argue that, ok…since that was what I really wanted to do
Lions don’t plan like people do, dependent on what exactly you are talking about. A lion plans to kill, it is natural for the lion to do this to hunt. So using your great initial theory, since it’s planned it cannot be natural. Further compounded by your need to bring chaos theory into this is your stubborness to accept common sense, which seems to be a problem.
There is nothing wrong with my response, your little summary on chaos theory directly refutes Newton’s first law of motion. Genius. What did you do? read a CNN summary of chaos theory?Please at least learn something about chaos theory before you respond to it!
J
JFonseka
Guest
Before attempting to have a debate with me about physical concepts, read first:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_for_a_falling_body
M
Montalban
Guest
What a riot! His intent was never to refute Newton. The fact that the ball is suspended IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE GRAVITY is the very point. You can’t undertake the demonstration of the ‘natural’ process without lifting the ball. That’s interefence in the experiment, because you cause the experiment to happen!
That’s why I said Gleick doesn’t refute Gravity. He’s not. He’d say that the experiment in order to demonstrate gravity is not a natural event. Gravity is. That’s what’s got you confused. He’s not talking about gravity once the ball is released. Thus he’s not refuting gravity. He’d be dealing with the experiment. That’s not even taking into account that one has to organise the experiment by bringing students to a particular point to observe it. None of which is ‘natural’. The teacher’s there. The students. The ball. Someone planned it. The demonstration.
Is there a couple involved? Yes.
Did they plan to have sex? Yes.
Did nature force them to have sex? No.
Is there a natural law that explains why they planned to have sex? No.
Therefore they instigated an event (like the teacher in the example above), using their God-given intelligence to plan the event. Nature doesn’t run the whole show… unless you think that they’re mere animals acting on instinct. So, quite frankly I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to understand this
Then you’re arguing that they were acting purely on instinct? We are either rational beings who aren’t ‘compelled’ to have sex the moment we feel the urge - and therefore can plan to have sex, or we’re just animals acting on instinct, and there’s no planning (totally ‘natural’).
And the ad homs now come out
M
Montalban
Guest
Here it is in a sentence…
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.”
catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
The amount of times I’ve got to teach Catholics their faith is simply amazing.
M
Montalban
Guest
It has nothing to do with this!
I’m not disputing the laws of gravity AT ALL.
I’m talking about an EXPERIMENT to DEMONSTRATE gravity.
J
JFonseka
Guest
I don’t care as to what he said, I never read into his works, I am criticizing YOUR comments. His intent may never have been to refute Newton and it probably never did. What a riot!
Do you even know how experiments are done? There is a hypothesis, when dealing with gravity, it is hypothesisized that gravity exists everywhere. So releasing something from rest makes an object accelerate downwards, regardless as to whether it’s released by hand, or the surface it was on was removed or observing an asteroid crash landing on earth, they ALL DEMONSTRATE gravity.
What is “you cause the experiment to happen?” In any case yes, ANY experiment is caused by someone doing it, even in the slightest sense, it has to be STARTED somewhere. Even accidental experiments like when Oersted proved the relationship between magnetism and electricity when he didn’t intend to, it was caused by someone. It’s not Gleick that has messed up theories, I take it back, it’s purely you, you probably stated Gleick’s theories all wrong, just like “you cause the experiment to happen” - roflcopterama.
Continued on next post, too long
J
JFonseka
Guest
Firstly, your summarizing is horrible, as can be seen from the earlier quote, where you stated somethings wrongly and then framing Gleick for your negligence. What is the purpose of this? The experiment may not be natural, but we aren’t discussing as to whether the experiment is natural or not, no one cares, the purpose of the experiment is to determine something. And the gravity experiment is one simple proof, but not rigorous as to why gravity exists, why is a rigorous proof not needed in a simple demonstration? Well because you need advanced physics to explain it fully!
This is how your analogy is flawed in reference to NFP, you see NFP as some kind of ‘experiment’ that is not natural, NFP is not an experiment when a man and woman use it. This analogy never demonstrated anything in reference to NFP. Never will
Define what you meant by nature FORCING them to, do you have in your mind some kind of image of a big tree called nature forcing the man and woman to have sex? Sex is called natural because it’s observed in nature in the animal kingdom. Planned doesn’t mean it’s not natural.the female can get pregnant ANYTIME during the year really, but there is a certain period in the month when they can’t. But the woman didn’t force herself to have the cycle, it was a part of God’s creation in the woman that she can’t get pregnant during certain times in the year, it’s NATURAL, understanding the cycle as natural is the first step to realizing what NFP is. The human utilizes what God has given, NATURALLY. Even if this is planned it doesn’t mean it’s not natural, infact that’s ridiculous, dancing with fancy terminology pertaining to the chaos theory, yes theory, it’s not even a ‘law’ yet like newton’s ‘laws’ of motion isn’t going to help you. Infact going into these theories when it’s not even fully proven when you can use common sense is a downfall for you.
Read above, quite frankly, we here are finding why you find this so difficult to understand.Therefore they instigated an event (like the teacher in the example above), using their God-given intelligence to plan the event. Nature doesn’t run the whole show… unless you think that they’re mere animals acting on instinct. So, quite frankly I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to understand this
No. Firstly, humans have ‘control’ we feel the urges, it maybe strong, just as strong as an animal’s, but animals do not have the concept of morality or self control or whether it’s the right time or not like we do, for a lion he can go mate anywhere he wants to on the savannah when the urge comes up, a human can’t go mating wherever they want to because they are controlled by morality.
However the lion does plan, if he sees another male lion in his area, he calculates to either run away, fight, or perhaps fight and run away, or perhaps come back later.
Furthermore you keep stating it’s not natural because it’s been planned and most of your conclusions are based on this line of thinking, so this is circular reasoning, to use the conclusions of the very thing me and you are arguing at the moment (whether or not because it’s planned it’s not natural) to prove it.
Really smart.Too cool for school I see.
M
Montalban
Guest
I repeat again HE NEVER INTENDED TO REFUTE NEWTON!
Please, step back and read what I said. Stop straw-manning the posts!
M
Montalban
Guest
Stop straw-manning the posts. The issue isn’t gravity, but an experiment. It doesn’t matter if it’s an experiment to demonstrate gravity, or any other process.
More straw-man. The issue is that man makes a conscious decision to start a process.
No. I asked you to show how they’re compelled.
That’s hysterical. Now you’re going for the emotive appeal of ‘we’ against ‘me’. If that’s the case no one else is defending your atrocious straw-manning over experiments.
Then it’s not natural!
More anger! It’s from you being frustrated because rather than deal with the analogy about an experiment you want to go off on a tangent about gravity. Then you can’t make up your mind if people are able to overcome their natural urges, or not. Then you want to assign a level of planning to lions (your analogy) in an effort to bring man back down to the level of animals.
Stop straw-manning the posts. The issue isn’t gravity, but an experiment. It doesn’t matter if it’s an experiment to demonstrate gravity, or any other process.
More straw-man. The issue is that man makes a conscious decision to start a process.
No. I asked you to show how they’re compelled.
That’s hysterical. Now you’re going for the emotive appeal of ‘we’ against ‘me’. If that’s the case no one else is defending your atrocious straw-manning over experiments.
Then it’s not natural!
More anger! It’s from you being frustrated because rather than deal with the analogy about an experiment you want to go off on a tangent about gravity. Then you can’t make up your mind if people are able to overcome their natural urges, or not. Then you want to assign a level of planning to lions (your analogy) in an effort to bring man back down to the level of animals.
Apology accepted
Apology accepted
J
JFonseka
Guest
THEN READ WHAT I WROTE, WHAT YOU JUST QUOTED. I ACCEPTED THAT, now step back and read what I said.
J
JFonseka
Guest
Yea and you likened this experiment to NFP, and we had to look at the issue of gravity to see if this analogy was acceptable.
I never denied it, somehow you feel that because it’s a conscious decision, it’s planned and therefore unnatural, as if everything that is natural is a subconscious decision. Very intelligent.
Do I really need to explain reasons as to why men and women want to have sex? There are millions of them. It may differ from particular religious backgrounds too.
Rubbish! It’s called an appeal to common sense, if everyone here is explaining it fairly well and everyone here seems to have a similar idea, it’s more LIKELY to be the correct answer, it doesn’t have to be definitely, but this is where common sense drops in. Going into chaos theory to prove naturalness is stupid. I don’t wish for anyone to defend my arguments, it wouldn’t help, your vague summary on chaos theory has derailed the main idea anyways, we don’t need more (name removed by moderator)ut on the same matter.
Yes it is, a human being has many similarities to animals, but we also have a more developed conscious. It is normal for animals to act on those urges impulsively, but not for us, because there is a presence of God that deems pure animalistic behaviour as immoral, hence it cannot be natural, for if it were then it would disprove God, which is a proof by contradiction.
THAT IS WHY WE HAVE RELIGION. THE SEX ACT IS NATURAL IN ITSELF, but the way God intended it to be used FOR HUMANS is DIFFERENT, but it’s natural, because GOD intended it that way.
Anger? More like a rofl attack. Oh please, I’m not the one who introduced gravity into this, you did, and I was pointing out it was a flawed analogy. Lengthy as it may have been.
My lion analogy was flawed, BUT I INTENDED IT THAT WAY, I wanted to show the DIFFERENCE between that and the Humans, you picked up well on it, I was demonstrating how YOUR analogy was flawed that way by the intrinsic differences in the central theme pertaining to the analogies. Yet you failed to see the flaw in your analogy.
The very nature of gravity and human sex is rather different, to equate different qualities in analogy is just plain stupid. You can stop using “straw-manning” now, new term of the day?
Apology accepted
Apology?Apology accepted
It was a random comment, just like your ad hominem statement.
M
mercygate
Guest
Let me see if I understand the bolded sentence. Man is separate from the animals. God created us capable of rational thought, of understanding the future outcome of present acts, i.e., planning. So by using our God-given, natural ability to think and plan we are acting artificially.
Maybe that’s not what you meant. But that’s what you said.
M
Montalban
Guest
You don’t address what I wrote.
M
Montalban
Guest
Certainly one could say that our ability to plan is in our nature. However we plan cities and they’re not natural, but artificial
Conversely - and this will also help you see you attempt at objection, if you think whatever we do is natural, being given by the grace of God, then a man undertaking to make use of a device to stop a pregnancy is natural.
SO which is it?
If a man uses his natural faculties to invent a device to stop a conception, is it natural? Why did you argue back in post 16 about hindering something natural? Surely the person is using their God given *nature *to do so?
I think this term natural has caused a lot of young Catholics a lot of confusion… because we have both a biological compoent, and a Godly component - we’re more than the animals, but still have some needs that are more base.
I note no one’s taking up the issue of Natural Law Morality, so I hope that means people accept what I said regarding this being a plank of Catholic morality
M
Montalban
Guest
No. We had a look at the issue of having an experiment is acceptable as an analogy. This is about the fourth time I’ve stated this.
:yawn:
- Status