Mike111 0 #76 December 1, 2005 Good point - typo there- too late to correct - should read "who don't force it on others" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #77 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteNature defines it. The church simply recognizes it ... ...the church is not in the business of physics Aren't these contradictory? Please explain further, especially on how natural law relates to matters of morality. Cheers very good question... at work now, can't delve further for the moment... natural law is not the same as laws of nature, like gravity. Natural law, as it relates to human actions, has more to do w/ fulfilling the purpose and duty for what something was created for... for example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #78 December 1, 2005 QuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. Since when did the church start condoning necrophilia? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #79 December 1, 2005 This is gonna be fun... QuoteNatural law, as it relates to human actions, has more to do w/ fulfilling the purpose and duty for what something was created for... for example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. I feel horny so that I'll go bone. Spew inside that vicious cunt, etc., etc. So she could end up preggers, and little Sudsies are gestated and whoofed out. Right? Hmm... I feel horny quite a bit. And for a lot of different women. It could be said that we males are naturally driven to spread our seed as much as possible, to as many as possible. It has something to do with survival of the species, but there's an evolutionary component, too, which I won't address here. Now, if the Good Book tells us that sex is sacred, shared in the bonds of monogamy and marriage, experiencing the pleasure only to make little Sudsies with one bitch, then is that also not a violation of natural law? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #80 December 1, 2005 QuoteI prefer this version: http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ Only cause it makes absolutely no sense. Dood, you're a sick puppy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #81 December 1, 2005 QuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #82 December 1, 2005 Quotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #83 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? I'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #84 December 1, 2005 QuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #85 December 1, 2005 simple really, and you know it... b/c we aren't merely animal... we're human beings. we're made differently. we're not just instinct and drive. if that is all we were, we wouldn't need prisons. we're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. you can't reduce humans to simply animals. look at the incredible damage done to relationships when you do... when people don't control their drives and have affairs and all of that... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #86 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Why?.... Because I'm not Catholic? We don't have Nuns and Priests and I'm not familiar with the rules pertaining to each. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #87 December 1, 2005 lol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #88 December 1, 2005 Quotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #89 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious. yes, i'd say so, to a degree... eating is certainly pleasurable, it was designed to be. but the pleasure is secondary, not primary. The primary end of eating, what it is designed for, is to sustain life. And to that end, if you consume nothing but McDonalds, you will be harming that life, by gaining weight and causing a general deterioration of your health. The pleasure of eating that food (and it is designed purely to be pleasurable, the secondary here has usurped the primary ends), is actually harming you, so yes, I'd say to a degree that is a violation. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #90 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #91 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... That's just my interpretation of it. When one becomes a Christian, he/she is considered "married" to the body of Christ (the Church). Catholics, IMO, just take that concept to the extreme. Again, just telling you what I think. A Catholic would be better suited to explain their specific doctrine in detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #92 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... short and sweet version.. gotta get some work done today... nuns (who live in a cloistered convent) and sisters (who work "in the world" teaching, etc.) are "married" to God in that they make their life-vow, a pledge of chastity, etc., to God, in a similar way that husband and wife make to each other. It's not a straight analogy. a priest is married to the church, the body of christ, again, not a straight analogy, but it comes from the scripture "husbands, love your wives as christ loved the church." the priest stands in persona cristi, in the person of christ, in the catholic church, so that in acting as the priest, we don't see that man, we see christ. and that man has pledged his life, vowed, if you will, his life, to the service of the church, like a marriage. that is one reason why, in today's catholic church, priests do not marry. they already are "married" to the church... the church is their fulltime commitment. it's not a job to them. it's their life, their everything. when a parishioner is sick in the hospital in the middle of the night, they get out of bed and go. when someone dies, they go. when someone needs counsel, they give it. they are a father, they are a friend, they are "married" to the congregation so to speak. hope this helps. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #93 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. You described natural law using urge: urge to eat, due to need for nutrition. I retorted with our urge to fuck: urge to fuck lots and spread our seed. I don't have the urge to be monogamous -- that's environmental conditioning (nurture vs. nature). How is monogamy a fulfillment of natural law, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #94 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #95 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). to suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. in that sense, monogamy is "natural" and good for the mankind. it is more than just about "urges." i'm not the best at explaining this right now... trying to work, but keep getting sucked back... must... resist.... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #96 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #97 December 1, 2005 Quoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #98 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. no, not just "determined" by the church... adhered to by them, but by others as well... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #99 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Gotta agree - if an organization wants to redefine words to match their sets of rules, then more power to them. Churches do it, political parties do it. Control a society's language and eventually you do control how people think. We won't ever have to talk someday as all the words won't have any real meaning then due to all the conflicting organizations that understand this principle. Then finally we can start assessing people on their actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #100 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons. not true, b/c remember, we're not just animals... we're moral creatures. you can't get around that... men shouldn't go around impregnating as many women as they can, b/c unlike lesser animals who can instinctively, w/ some learning, survive in the wild, babies need a lot of support, love, teaching, etc.... from a mother and a father... and the environment where that most favorable is a monogamous heterosexual marriage. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
SudsyFist 0 #79 December 1, 2005 This is gonna be fun... QuoteNatural law, as it relates to human actions, has more to do w/ fulfilling the purpose and duty for what something was created for... for example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. I feel horny so that I'll go bone. Spew inside that vicious cunt, etc., etc. So she could end up preggers, and little Sudsies are gestated and whoofed out. Right? Hmm... I feel horny quite a bit. And for a lot of different women. It could be said that we males are naturally driven to spread our seed as much as possible, to as many as possible. It has something to do with survival of the species, but there's an evolutionary component, too, which I won't address here. Now, if the Good Book tells us that sex is sacred, shared in the bonds of monogamy and marriage, experiencing the pleasure only to make little Sudsies with one bitch, then is that also not a violation of natural law? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #80 December 1, 2005 QuoteI prefer this version: http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/ Only cause it makes absolutely no sense. Dood, you're a sick puppy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #81 December 1, 2005 QuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #82 December 1, 2005 Quotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #83 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? I'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #84 December 1, 2005 QuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #85 December 1, 2005 simple really, and you know it... b/c we aren't merely animal... we're human beings. we're made differently. we're not just instinct and drive. if that is all we were, we wouldn't need prisons. we're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. you can't reduce humans to simply animals. look at the incredible damage done to relationships when you do... when people don't control their drives and have affairs and all of that... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #86 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Why?.... Because I'm not Catholic? We don't have Nuns and Priests and I'm not familiar with the rules pertaining to each. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #87 December 1, 2005 lol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #88 December 1, 2005 Quotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #89 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious. yes, i'd say so, to a degree... eating is certainly pleasurable, it was designed to be. but the pleasure is secondary, not primary. The primary end of eating, what it is designed for, is to sustain life. And to that end, if you consume nothing but McDonalds, you will be harming that life, by gaining weight and causing a general deterioration of your health. The pleasure of eating that food (and it is designed purely to be pleasurable, the secondary here has usurped the primary ends), is actually harming you, so yes, I'd say to a degree that is a violation. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #90 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pajarito 0 #91 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... That's just my interpretation of it. When one becomes a Christian, he/she is considered "married" to the body of Christ (the Church). Catholics, IMO, just take that concept to the extreme. Again, just telling you what I think. A Catholic would be better suited to explain their specific doctrine in detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #92 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... short and sweet version.. gotta get some work done today... nuns (who live in a cloistered convent) and sisters (who work "in the world" teaching, etc.) are "married" to God in that they make their life-vow, a pledge of chastity, etc., to God, in a similar way that husband and wife make to each other. It's not a straight analogy. a priest is married to the church, the body of christ, again, not a straight analogy, but it comes from the scripture "husbands, love your wives as christ loved the church." the priest stands in persona cristi, in the person of christ, in the catholic church, so that in acting as the priest, we don't see that man, we see christ. and that man has pledged his life, vowed, if you will, his life, to the service of the church, like a marriage. that is one reason why, in today's catholic church, priests do not marry. they already are "married" to the church... the church is their fulltime commitment. it's not a job to them. it's their life, their everything. when a parishioner is sick in the hospital in the middle of the night, they get out of bed and go. when someone dies, they go. when someone needs counsel, they give it. they are a father, they are a friend, they are "married" to the congregation so to speak. hope this helps. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #93 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. You described natural law using urge: urge to eat, due to need for nutrition. I retorted with our urge to fuck: urge to fuck lots and spread our seed. I don't have the urge to be monogamous -- that's environmental conditioning (nurture vs. nature). How is monogamy a fulfillment of natural law, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #94 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #95 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). to suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. in that sense, monogamy is "natural" and good for the mankind. it is more than just about "urges." i'm not the best at explaining this right now... trying to work, but keep getting sucked back... must... resist.... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #96 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SudsyFist 0 #97 December 1, 2005 Quoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #98 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. no, not just "determined" by the church... adhered to by them, but by others as well... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #99 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Gotta agree - if an organization wants to redefine words to match their sets of rules, then more power to them. Churches do it, political parties do it. Control a society's language and eventually you do control how people think. We won't ever have to talk someday as all the words won't have any real meaning then due to all the conflicting organizations that understand this principle. Then finally we can start assessing people on their actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sinker 0 #100 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons. not true, b/c remember, we're not just animals... we're moral creatures. you can't get around that... men shouldn't go around impregnating as many women as they can, b/c unlike lesser animals who can instinctively, w/ some learning, survive in the wild, babies need a lot of support, love, teaching, etc.... from a mother and a father... and the environment where that most favorable is a monogamous heterosexual marriage. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #81 December 1, 2005 QuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #82 December 1, 2005 Quotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #83 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteAlso, being "married" in the sense that you and I are familiar is different from being married to "the body of Christ" which is the church. So, the RC can have their own little different version of marriage. However, gays cannot have their own little different version of marriage? So, if God transcends gender, then why is it only nuns get married to the heavenly Spouse? Why don't priests marry the same entity? I'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #84 December 1, 2005 QuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #85 December 1, 2005 simple really, and you know it... b/c we aren't merely animal... we're human beings. we're made differently. we're not just instinct and drive. if that is all we were, we wouldn't need prisons. we're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. you can't reduce humans to simply animals. look at the incredible damage done to relationships when you do... when people don't control their drives and have affairs and all of that... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #86 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteI'm not a Catholic. Better to ask one on the specifics of Catholic doctrine. Now that is what my boss would call a "dump and run"...... Why?.... Because I'm not Catholic? We don't have Nuns and Priests and I'm not familiar with the rules pertaining to each. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #87 December 1, 2005 lol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #88 December 1, 2005 Quotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #89 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotefor example, you eat b/c you need nutrition in order to live. You would not be acting in accordance w/ your nature if you ate something, just to experience the pleasure of eating, and then threw it up, so that you wouldn't experience the nutrition of the food. That is a violation of natural law. Well then what about if you eat some food that has had lots of flavours added to it and processing carried out that makes it taste better but takes away a lot of its nutritional value. Because you keep eating this kind of food all the extra sugar and fat begins to make you overweight. Violation? How far does the natural law go in distinguishing between pleasure and purpose? I'm genuinely curious. yes, i'd say so, to a degree... eating is certainly pleasurable, it was designed to be. but the pleasure is secondary, not primary. The primary end of eating, what it is designed for, is to sustain life. And to that end, if you consume nothing but McDonalds, you will be harming that life, by gaining weight and causing a general deterioration of your health. The pleasure of eating that food (and it is designed purely to be pleasurable, the secondary here has usurped the primary ends), is actually harming you, so yes, I'd say to a degree that is a violation. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #90 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #91 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... That's just my interpretation of it. When one becomes a Christian, he/she is considered "married" to the body of Christ (the Church). Catholics, IMO, just take that concept to the extreme. Again, just telling you what I think. A Catholic would be better suited to explain their specific doctrine in detail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #92 December 1, 2005 Quotelol, you had no problem replying to the nuns being married to God thing though... Anyways, maybe sinker can enlighten me.... short and sweet version.. gotta get some work done today... nuns (who live in a cloistered convent) and sisters (who work "in the world" teaching, etc.) are "married" to God in that they make their life-vow, a pledge of chastity, etc., to God, in a similar way that husband and wife make to each other. It's not a straight analogy. a priest is married to the church, the body of christ, again, not a straight analogy, but it comes from the scripture "husbands, love your wives as christ loved the church." the priest stands in persona cristi, in the person of christ, in the catholic church, so that in acting as the priest, we don't see that man, we see christ. and that man has pledged his life, vowed, if you will, his life, to the service of the church, like a marriage. that is one reason why, in today's catholic church, priests do not marry. they already are "married" to the church... the church is their fulltime commitment. it's not a job to them. it's their life, their everything. when a parishioner is sick in the hospital in the middle of the night, they get out of bed and go. when someone dies, they go. when someone needs counsel, they give it. they are a father, they are a friend, they are "married" to the congregation so to speak. hope this helps. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #93 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotewe're expected to control these drives, and one we're expected to have control of is our libido. But how is this not in violation of natural law, as you've described it? Why would it be OK to violate natural law in one way (monogamy), but not in another (man-on-man bloody butt sex)? monogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. You described natural law using urge: urge to eat, due to need for nutrition. I retorted with our urge to fuck: urge to fuck lots and spread our seed. I don't have the urge to be monogamous -- that's environmental conditioning (nurture vs. nature). How is monogamy a fulfillment of natural law, then? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #94 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #95 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. I doubt it, we aren't wired or built that way. Monogamy is a cultural evolution made with conscious choice. I think it's a good thing, but I don't think it is natural for the species. In other words, it's a moral position that is reinforced by religious and/or cultural upbringing that has definite positive benefits for society (which is why it's attached to morality - which is good behavior considered good for all). to suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. in that sense, monogamy is "natural" and good for the mankind. it is more than just about "urges." i'm not the best at explaining this right now... trying to work, but keep getting sucked back... must... resist.... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #96 December 1, 2005 Quotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #97 December 1, 2005 Quoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #98 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. no, not just "determined" by the church... adhered to by them, but by others as well... -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuoteto suds and rehmwa... natural law isn't primarily concerned w/ laws of nature, as i've said... it also is concerned w/ moral law as well. So you're saying it's a misnomer. It also sounds like it's a misleading term for something subjectively determined by the Church. No arguing against that, then. Carry on. Gotta agree - if an organization wants to redefine words to match their sets of rules, then more power to them. Churches do it, political parties do it. Control a society's language and eventually you do control how people think. We won't ever have to talk someday as all the words won't have any real meaning then due to all the conflicting organizations that understand this principle. Then finally we can start assessing people on their actions. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sinker 0 #100 December 1, 2005 QuoteQuotemonogamy is not a violation of natural law, it is a fulfillment of it. Surely monogamy is simply a question of morality, not related in any way to purpose. The purpose of sex is to procreate (which is why you said sodomy is wrong) and the best way to ensure succesfull procreation is to get as many women pregnant as possible. There is no natural purpose for monogamy, only moral reasons. not true, b/c remember, we're not just animals... we're moral creatures. you can't get around that... men shouldn't go around impregnating as many women as they can, b/c unlike lesser animals who can instinctively, w/ some learning, survive in the wild, babies need a lot of support, love, teaching, etc.... from a mother and a father... and the environment where that most favorable is a monogamous heterosexual marriage. -the artist formerly known as sinker Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
