Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[Mr. Shaman]

Huh? Natural law is natural law -- as in natural revelation (i.e., reason). It arises organically from human nature, not divine command.

That'd explain a LOT!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Natural Law. I see. There is a difference in natural law for plant eaters and meat eaters? Fish have one set of rules and plants have another?

....And, "conservatives" trump ALL o' them!!! (Just ask 'em.)

Sounds kind o' anarchic, to me.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Huh? Natural law is natural law -- as in natural revelation (i.e., reason). It arises organically from human nature, not divine command. This is why it always grates on my nerves when people talk about the Church promoting "religious dogma" as Openmind did; the Church's teachings are rooted in the rational philosophies of classical essentialism and teleology, not arbitrary fiat.

I don't think I've ever even mentioned the Bible once in all my time posting at HoP, much less to justify one of the Church's teachings.

You are using circular reasoning....

My ol'-time-religion/Protestant Mother used to call it (all) a Mystery.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You'd do well to familiarize yourself with what you're talking about before you ridicule it. "Natural law" does not mean "laws of nature," in the sense of a scientific observation of general tendencies of things. It is a philosophy that attempts to discern moral laws on the basis of human nature, which is necessarily informed by the final causes of the various features of the human person. An extremely simplistic explanation would be to say that it is good for you to use your faculties in the way they were intended to be used, and bad for you to use them in some other way.

aka....fight or flight. (Syn. self-preservation)

*

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Natural law philosophy predates Christ by several centuries. So does the natural law prohibition on homosexuality; Aristotle compared it to eating dirt.

And its not as if its a difficult philosophy to grasp or one that's open to competing interpretations. It simply asserts that every human faculty serves some end, and that goodness consists in acting toward that end while sin consists in acting contrary to it.

....And, which team do the 1%ers/high-roller$ belong-to??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I've never been a big-fan o' running-the-COUNTRY, like a bu$ine$$.

Maybe that is why we are $14 trillion in debt with no plan on how to turn that around.

We've been HERE, before......​

 

[BigRob]

We've been HERE, before......​

Yes we have...and we didn't solve anything back then either.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

My ol'-time-religion/Protestant Mother used to call it (all) a Mystery.

Probably because, as you say, your mother was a Protestant.

Most Protestants are fideists and voluntarists -- fools and heretics all.

aka....fight or flight. (Syn. self-preservation)

*

Certainly there is a natural law obligation to protect your own life, with violent force if necessary. That applies to anyone who might be unjustly attempting to take it, including giant evil sand worms.

In retrospect, looking at my earlier post you cited, it would be more appropriate to say that it is "bad for you to use [your faculties] in a manner contrary to their purpose."

....And, which team do the 1%ers/high-roller$ belong-to??

I think you'll find I'm no big fan of the wealthy.

 

[PLC1]

It is "natural" in the sense that it arises from human nature.

And yes, sex is for procreation. What other purpose would it serve? Would you deny you have eyes so that you can see, or do you believe the capacity of your eyes to see is simply an arbitrary circumstance which evolutionary theorists conjure up in a feeble effort to impose order in an irrational world?

Sex is not just for procreation. It is for intimacy, pleasure, and fun as well.

If the only purpose of sex is procreation, why do we use condoms?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

you know if Mohammad says that in the Koran, Christians would attack him...odd.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Sex is not just for procreation. It is for intimacy, pleasure, and fun as well.

If the only purpose of sex is procreation, why do we use condoms?

The unitive aspect of sex is subordinate to procreation: you develop feelings for your lover so that you will stick around and care for her once she's pregnant and vulnerable, and also so that you will help provide for the child you've created with her. (It's this fact from which the marital institution arises). Likewise with the pleasurable aspect: sex feels good because that drives people to have it more often and therefore to have lots of kids. Our sex drive serves the same purpose, as does the fact that it's relatively easy to get pregnant.

People use condoms precisely to sever the sexual act from its procreative end -- that is, they do it because they know full well that the purpose of sex is procreation.

That fact alone makes the use of condoms morally illicit.

 

[Lagboltz]

People use condoms precisely to sever the sexual act from its procreative end -- that is, they do it because they know full well that the purpose of sex is procreation.

That fact alone makes the use of condoms morally illicit.

That reasoning also makes it immoral for women to have sex after menopause. They should be ashamed of themselves. Sterile men or women should be ashamed. Women who want children out of wedlock are OK though.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

That reasoning also makes it immoral for women to have sex after menopause. They should be ashamed of themselves. Sterile men or women should be ashamed. Women who want children out of wedlock are OK though.

Nope.

Natural law morality simply asserts that it is good to use one's faculties in a manner consistent with their end, and bad ("disordered") to use them in a contrary manner.

Therefore, any sexual act which is innately procreative is morally licit, even if the act is incidentally incapable of procreation.

By contrast, any sexual which is innately incapable of procreation, including masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, paraphilia, and contraceptive sex, is morally illicit.

Premarital sex is morally illicit for the reason I mentioned in my previous post in this thread: if the sex faculty is ordered toward procreation, then an individual's obligation (and claim) to his or her partner does not end with the conclusion of the sexual act.

 

[PLC1]

The unitive aspect of sex is subordinate to procreation: you develop feelings for your lover so that you will stick around and care for her once she's pregnant and vulnerable, and also so that you will help provide for the child you've created with her. (It's this fact from which the marital institution arises). Likewise with the pleasurable aspect: sex feels good because that drives people to have it more often and therefore to have lots of kids. Our sex drive serves the same purpose, as does the fact that it's relatively easy to get pregnant.

People use condoms precisely to sever the sexual act from its procreative end -- that is, they do it because they know full well that the purpose of sex is procreation.

That fact alone makes the use of condoms morally illicit.

So, you believe that birth control is immoral, really?

I can remember when the issue of birth control was highly controversial, with many people believing that it was a moral issue, much like the abortion controversy today.

Did you know that condoms once had the phrase, "for the prevention of disease only" printed on them?

 

[Lagboltz]

Nope.

Natural law morality simply asserts that it is good to use one's faculties in a manner consistent with their end, and bad ("disordered") to use them in a contrary manner.

Therefore, any sexual act which is innately procreative is morally licit, even if the act is incidentally incapable of procreation.

By contrast, any sexual which is innately incapable of procreation, including masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, paraphilia, and contraceptive sex, is morally illicit.

Premarital sex is morally illicit for the reason I mentioned in my previous post in this thread: if the sex faculty is ordered toward procreation, then an individual's obligation (and claim) to his or her partner does not end with the conclusion of the sexual act.

My gosh. Who writes this stuff anyway? If that's your moral code fine, you can have it, but it's not for everyone.