Michele Bachmann officially leaves her church

[ThisTooShallPass]

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.

I believe contraception such as condoms or the pill are immoral, yes. There are, however, birth control methods that are morally licit because they conform to the objective telos of the sexual act (natural family planning), and which, properly practiced, can be more effective in preventing pregnancy than contraception, anyway.

That nearly everyone, including many Catholics, disagree, does not change the fact of the immorality of contraception.

My gosh. Who writes this stuff anyway?

Several millennia's worth of philosophers wiser than anyone on this forum, myself included.

If that's your moral code fine, you can have it, but it's not for everyone./quote]

Thank for you for the permission slip to live a life consistent with the good.

However, it is by definition "for everyone"; that's why it's called "natural" "law." I understand if you don't have an argument against it and are compelled to resort to banal observations of trends; most people are ignorant of natural law, prejudiced against it by the degeneracy which modernity has conditioned into them, and deeply uncomfortable with the idea that goodness demands a deal more from them than they're willing to surrender.

 

[Lagboltz]

However, it is by definition "for everyone"; that's why it's called "natural" "law." I understand if you don't have an argument against it and are compelled to resort to banal observations of trends; most people are ignorant of natural law, prejudiced against it by the degeneracy which modernity has conditioned into them, and deeply uncomfortable with the idea that goodness demands a deal more from them than they're willing to surrender.

Just because your brand of philosophy is "by definition" for everyone, it does not mean that it actually is for everyone. It only means that the particular morality you embrace is for you and your sect to judge others.

You may believe that those that don't abide by your sect are immoral. But that's all that it is -- a belief. BTW i am curious. What do you believe are the ramifications of violating your moral code.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Just because your brand of philosophy is "by definition" for everyone, it does not mean that it actually is for everyone. It only means that the particular morality you embrace is for you and your sect to judge others.

Natural law is based on an understanding of what human nature requires of us. And since all humans share in that common nature, it is necessarily "for everyone".

What you mean to say is that some people feel like it's not "for them." Which is hardly a sophisticated insight, much less a legitimate defense of any other moral system or a criticism of this one. Most people are idiots, and their feelings are irrelevant.

BTW i am curious. What do you believe are the ramifications of violating your moral code.

What are the ramifications of violating any moral code? Evil is its own punishment. You'll live a pointless, shallow, stupid life and die in despair, having never fulfilled the noblest aspects of your character.

From a Catholic standpoint (bear in mind the Church's social teachings are based on natural law), you live a pointless, shallow, stupid life and die in despair, are reincarnated, and then resume your pointless, shallow, stupid life in the darkness far away from God, having squandered every opportunity given to you to improve yourself.

 

[PLC1]

I believe contraception such as condoms or the pill are immoral, yes. There are, however, birth control methods that are morally licit because they conform to the objective telos of the sexual act (natural family planning), and which, properly practiced, can be more effective in preventing pregnancy than contraception, anyway.

Yes, I know a woman who refers to her last two as the "rhythm twins."

Human biology being what it is, a male produces semen and sperm starting somewhere around the ripe old age of 12 or so, hits a peak of production somewhere in the late teen years, then gradually and very slowly begins to produce less and less as he ages. That sperm and semen has to go somewhere. If he does not have sex, does not masturbate, then that excess body fluid is expelled during sleep. There really is nothing that he can do about it.

Feeling "guilty" about a natural process is simply not healthy. Making a baby with every ejaculation is not possible. Birth control or self gratification is not an "immoral" choice, IMO. You think it is, and you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

 

[Openmind]

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.

I'm very sorry for you! You are every woman's nightmare!

Obviously, you are not married. Or your wife is probably on the path to sainthood!

God didn't give us the ability to feel love, and to feel desire with the ONLY intention to procreate. That is ridiculous. . . We are not God's breeding stock! If that was the true, he would have limited our "inclination for sex" or "desire for sexual contact" to the period each month (for most women) when procreation is possible.

He did it for many species. . .like female dogs in heat!

I have more faith than you do in God's love, and in HIS/HER/ITs design for the human race! God didn't set his children for failure. . .making every "natural" desire more likely to lead to "sin" than to "love."

I think the priesthood may fit you just fine. . .as long as you select a monastery, rather than a community setting!

 

[Lagboltz]

Natural law is based on an understanding of what human nature requires of us. And since all humans share in that common nature, it is necessarily "for everyone".

I think we are going in circles here. That is your particular philosophy coupled with a hubris that it should be everyone's law.

What you mean to say is that some people feel like it's not "for them." Which is hardly a sophisticated insight, much less a legitimate defense of any other moral system or a criticism of this one. Most people are idiots, and their feelings are irrelevant.

No, I actually mean that there are lots of religions with varying degrees of moral codes. They may easily have less restrictions on birth control than your religion. You seem to be displaying a high degree of arrogance about your particular tenets applying to everyone.

What are the ramifications of violating any moral code? Evil is its own punishment. You'll live a pointless, shallow, stupid life and die in despair, having never fulfilled the noblest aspects of your character.

I don't believe in your moral code concerning birth control, but my life has been far from shallow or stupid. I have fulfilled the noblest aspects of my character. I'm sure that also includes many others that believe in birth control.

From a Catholic standpoint (bear in mind the Church's social teachings are based on natural law), you live a pointless, shallow, stupid life and die in despair, are reincarnated, and then resume your pointless, shallow, stupid life in the darkness far away from God, having squandered every opportunity given to you to improve yourself.

I'm sure there are many, from persistent drug users to mass murders that might fall under your description. But I don't believe in your very strict tenets. If I inadvertently harm someone I feel guilty and try to achieve atonement in my secular way. I obey the usual range of moral code as given in the ten commandments, etc. Do you think I will be condemned to an eternal dispair, etc.?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

Yes, I know a woman who refers to her last two as the "rhythm twins."

The rhythm method is somewhat different from NFP. It only requires charting, and is therefore insanely unreliable. NFP by contrast involves measurement of fertility-relevant metrics like cervical mucous and basal body temperature. As I said, properly practiced, NFP is more effective than condoms. Where people get pregnant practicing NFP, it's typically because they couldn't practice self-control and wound up having sex during the woman's fertile period.

Human biology being what it is, a male produces semen and sperm starting somewhere around the ripe old age of 12 or so, hits a peak of production somewhere in the late teen years, then gradually and very slowly begins to produce less and less as he ages. That sperm and semen has to go somewhere. If he does not have sex, does not masturbate, then that excess body fluid is expelled during sleep. There really is nothing that he can do about it.

Feeling "guilty" about a natural process is simply not healthy. Making a baby with every ejaculation is not possible. Birth control or self gratification is not an "immoral" choice, IMO. You think it is, and you're entitled to your opinion, of course.

Well, that's not true -- excess sperm is typically resorbed by the body. But it's also irrelevant; nocturnal emission is a reflex, not a willed action, and there is no moral injunction that accrues to actions over which one has absolutely no control.

Natural law does not require that every sexual act result in conception; only that every sexual act be open to the possibility of it. That means no contraception, no (intentional) extravaginal ejaculation, etc.

I'm very sorry for you! You are every woman's nightmare!

Many good women practice NFP and would settle for nothing less than a man who shares their aversion to meaningless, fruitless sex.

God didn't give us the ability to feel love, and to feel desire with the ONLY intention to procreate. That is ridiculous. . . We are not God's breeding stock! If that was the true, he would have limited our "inclination for sex" or "desire for sexual contact" to the period each month (for most women) when procreation is possible.

Conversely, God wants Heaven to be filled with souls. And He wants man to share in the act of creation.

I have more faith than you do in God's love, and in HIS/HER/ITs design for the human race! God didn't set his children for failure. . .making every "natural" desire more likely to lead to "sin" than to "love."

Natural desires are good when ordered toward their proper end and enjoyed in moderation. They are not good when enjoyed to excess as an end in themselves, as when one becomes a slave to one's passions.

I have a desire to eat. And I have that desire because it's good for me to eat -- because eating nourishes me. It is not good for me to eat (and eat and eat) and grow fat and unhealthy simply because I like the taste of food. That's wasteful and gluttonous.

Likewise, I have a desire to make love to women. And I have that desire because it's part of human nature to procreate. It is good for me to express that desire in a manner most consistent with the end of procreation -- that is, within the bonds of monogamous, marital commitment and without artificially suppressing my or my partner's natural fecundity. It is not good for me to pursue sex as an end in itself, or to sever the act from its end by means of contraception, withdrawal, etc.

I think we are going in circles here. That is your particular philosophy coupled with a hubris that it should be everyone's law.

It is everyone's law precisely because it follows from the objective reality of human nature. You asserting that it is subjective doesn't make it so; if you think it is, kindly demonstrate how.

No, I actually mean that there are lots of religions with varying degrees of moral codes. They may easily have less restrictions on birth control than your religion. You seem to be displaying a high degree of arrogance about your particular tenets applying to everyone.

And many of those religions arrive at identical conclusions, even if they do so through different means. The ones that don't are objectively wrong. Again, if you think this is wrong, kindly demonstrate how.

The assertion of "arrogance" only follows if I'm actually wrong. And I'm not. Again, natural law is the only moral system that is based on an objective considerations of circumstances outside the human person -- not on subjective nonsense like the individual's feelings, experiences, or intuitions.

I don't believe in your moral code concerning birth control, but my life has been far from shallow or stupid. I have fulfilled the noblest aspects of my character. I'm sure that also includes many others that believe in birth control.

You believe that because you have a disordered understanding of what human nature is.

I'm sure there are many, from persistent drug users to mass murders that might fall under your description. But I don't believe in your very strict tenets. If I inadvertently harm someone I feel guilty and try to achieve atonement in my secular way. I obey the usual range of moral code as given in the ten commandments, etc. Do you think I will be condemned to an eternal dispair, etc.?

There is a good deal more to morality than "try to avoid deliberately harming other people." It is possible to harm yourself and not even realize it.

If you are condemned to anything, it will be because you condemned yourself -- because you chose to fetishize your impulses instead of conform to the objective good demanded by your nature. God is not in the business of destroying souls but of saving them; and He can only save those souls that wish to be saved.

 

[Lagboltz]

It is everyone's law precisely because it follows from the objective reality of human nature. You asserting that it is subjective doesn't make it so; if you think it is, kindly demonstrate how.

We are going around in circles again. You and the millenium of philosophers asserting that it is objective doesn't make it so.

And many of those religions arrive at identical conclusions, even if they do so through different means. The ones that don't are objectively wrong. Again, if you think this is wrong, kindly demonstrate how.

Nobody can demonstrate a religious tenet is true. A robust demonstration generally boils down to accepting the axioms necessary for the demonstration. Religious axioms are the most tenuous as far as universal acceptance. I most likely do not agree with at least one axiom since I believe your conclusions as far as birth control are not in the best interest of mankind.

The assertion of "arrogance" only follows if I'm actually wrong. And I'm not.

Wow. You are almost defining the meaning of arrogance.

Again, natural law is the only moral system that is based on an objective considerations of circumstances outside the human person -- not on subjective nonsense like the individual's feelings, experiences, or intuitions.

You believe that because you have a disordered understanding of what human nature is.

Of course subjective nonsense, etc is not a good social concept. That is why we have a secular legal system.

There is a good deal more to morality than "try to avoid deliberately harming other people." It is possible to harm yourself and not even realize it.

I was unclear. I meant "try to avoid deliberately harming other people, etc."

If you are condemned to anything, it will be because you condemned yourself -- because you chose to fetishize your impulses instead of conform to the objective good demanded by your nature. God is not in the business of destroying souls but of saving them; and He can only save those souls that wish to be saved.

Well here is where our philosophies have to part. I do not believe in a god that micromanages our lives, or saves us, or listens to prayers.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

We are going around in circles again. You and the millenium of philosophers asserting that it is objective doesn't make it so.

They are not asserting it but logically demonstrating its validity, as I've done here earlier.

Natural law is quite simple and quite objective. It is rooted, simply, in an analysis of the various human faculties and characteristics, and a systematic working-out of what those faculties and characteristics imply for us -- for how we ought to think and behave.

Nobody can demonstrate a religious tenet is true. A robust demonstration generally boils down to accepting the axioms necessary for the demonstration. Religious axioms are the most tenuous as far as universal acceptance. I most likely do not agree with at least one axiom since I believe your conclusions as far as birth control are not in the best interest of mankind.

Natural law is not a religious doctrine but a philosophical one. It is therefore entirely falsifiable, because it relies on reason, not revelation. Natural law, for the record, precedes the organized Church by several centuries.

Wow. You are almost defining the meaning of arrogance.

Again, that is an assertion that only follows if I'm wrong, which you have already demonstrated you cannot prove because you do not even understand what I'm talking about.

In truth, I'm simply pointing out the obvious -- and it IS obvious, once you actually take a moment to consider what natural law is, instead of absurdly chopping it up to irrational religious dogmatism and then acting all aghast when someone insists on its validity.

Of course subjective nonsense, etc is not a good social concept. That is why we have a secular legal system.

I'm not talking about a system of civil law but a system of morality.

Well here is where our philosophies have to part. I do not believe in a god that micromanages our lives, or saves us, or listens to prayers.

That's because you have an understanding of the world that is explicitly irrational. God's existence is both logically necessary and logically unavoidable, as I've demonstrated here.

 

[Openmind]

The rhythm method is somewhat different from NFP. It only requires charting, and is therefore insanely unreliable. NFP by contrast involves measurement of fertility-relevant metrics like cervical mucous and basal body temperature. As I said, properly practiced, NFP is more effective than condoms. Where people get pregnant practicing NFP, it's typically because they couldn't practice self-control and wound up having sex during the woman's fertile period.

You're kidding, right? So, God intended us to invent the thermometer so that women could check the temperature of their vagina before they would give the "okay" sign to their husband to have sex. . . Very romantic, very loving, very stupid! If God had wanted us to have sex ONLY when "the time is right for procreation," HE/She/It would have make men and women feel the "urge" of sexual fulfillment ONLY on the 2 or 3 days when fertilization is most likely!

Well, that's not true -- excess sperm is typically resorbed by the body. But it's also irrelevant; nocturnal emission is a reflex, not a willed action, and there is no moral injunction that accrues to actions over which one has absolutely no control.

Well, I repeat myself! What a wonderful husband you would make! I can only imagine your wife waking up several times a week with a soiled sheet in her own bed, while she patiently checks the temperature of her vagina to see WHEN it will be okay to "collect" that precious sperm inside her instead of on her bed linens! You're so funny! I hope you're doing your own laundry!

Natural law does not require that every sexual act result in conception; only that every sexual act be open to the possibility of it. That means no contraception, no (intentional) extravaginal ejaculation, etc.

That is the natural law for ANIMALS. . .not for Humans! Humans can decide if/when it is wise to bring another child in this world who is already suffering from over population. Even animals, this days are very lucky and considered ABUSED, if they are used for constant procreation! Ever heard of "puppy mills?"

Many good women practice NFP and would settle for nothing less than a man who shares their aversion to meaningless, fruitless

sex.

Sex is not meaningless or fruitless if it brings two people together, if it reinforce their love and commitment to each other, and if that commitment is the mortar that keeps a family to raise the children they already have, or leads them to have children later in their life, when they both feel it is the right time.
You have a very, very low opinion of humans, of love, and of personal responsibility! You seem to believe that the ONLY reason humans are on this earth is to procreate. Are you sure your name is not "John Locke?" I wouldn't be surprised! NO one except that person is that narrow minded.

Conversely, God wants Heaven to be filled with souls. And He wants man to share in the act of creation.

"Heaven?" You are really funny! It doesn't matter how articulate you are, or how much you seem to have study theology. . .you have very little emotional IQ or logical reasoning! So, this "selfish God" would rather let His/Her/Its creation live a miserable life, over stretch his world's resources, and die as quickly as possibly from starvation or illnesses. . .to "fill his heaven with souls?????" Give me a break! He/She/It is GOD! He his end goal was to have a "heaven filled with souls," he would just CREATE SOULS. . .not humans to "harvest" souls! This is almost insulting to God in my view!

Natural desires are good when ordered toward their proper end and enjoyed in moderation. They are not good when enjoyed to excess as an end in themselves, as when one becomes a slave to one's passions.

Well, sorry to inform you of this. . .you are currently a slave of your own passion! You are a slave of hyper religious, and totally misguided morales that have NO PLACE in this world (or in heaven either by the way!).
Personally, as long as I am alive (thanks to a God that is giving, has a sense of humor, and enjoys seeing his/her/its creation HAPPY and fullfilled) rather than be a slave to ANY Church's dogmatic teachings. Actually, I'm not sure that any official Church would be as secterian as what you seem to be. . .
Do you realize that hyper-religiosity is often a sign of a serious mental illness? Many people with schizophrenia turn to hyper religiousity to get comfort!

I have a desire to eat. And I have that desire because it's good for me to eat -- because eating nourishes me. It is not good for me to eat (and eat and eat) and grow fat and unhealthy simply because I like the taste of food. That's wasteful and gluttonous. Likewise, I have a desire to make love to women. And I have that desire because it's part of human nature to procreate. It is good for me to express that desire in a manner most consistent with the end of procreation -- that is, within the bonds of monogamous, marital commitment and without artificially suppressing my or my partner's natural fecundity. It is not good for me to pursue sex as an end in itself, or to sever the act from its end by means of contraception, withdrawal, etc.

Well, with your philosophy. .I'm afraid you'll have great difficulty in finding a "soul sister" to "procreate!"

It is everyone's law precisely because it follows from the objective reality of human nature. You asserting that it is subjective doesn't make it so; if you think it is, kindly demonstrate how.

And many of those religions arrive at identical conclusions, even if they do so through different means. The ones that don't are objectively wrong. Again, if you think this is wrong, kindly demonstrate how.

You have certainly NOT demonstrated to me that you are correct in anyway!
Again, EVERY religion is manmade, and is divisive, which means that it is in fact more AGAINST God's will of unity and happiness than it is working toward God's goal!

The assertion of "arrogance" only follows if I'm actually wrong. And I'm not. Again, natural law is the only moral system that is based on an objective considerations of circumstances outside the human person -- not on subjective nonsense like the individual's feelings, experiences, or intuitions.

Just by stating that, you are demonstrating arrogance! Obviously, you are once again using circular reasoning: You are not arrogant because you are correct in your beliefs, but. . .I still do not see what makes you so sure you're right. . .so, your "non-arrogance" is basically based on your "arrogance" that tells you you are right!. . .nothing more!

You believe that because you have a disordered understanding of what human nature is.

There is a good deal more to morality than "try to avoid deliberately harming other people." It is possible to harm yourself and not even realize it.

If you are condemned to anything, it will be because you condemned yourself -- because you chose to fetishize your impulses instead of conform to the objective good demanded by your nature. God is not in the business of destroying souls but of saving them; and He can only save those souls that wish to be saved

.

Sorry, you totally lost me! Too many levels of "circular reasoning" and unhealthy beliefs!

Take care of yourself. . .and please check with a COUPLE of religious leaders you trust to make sure you're okay!

 

[Lagboltz]

They are not asserting it but logically demonstrating its validity, as I've done here earlier.

I assume you are referring to the arguments of Aquinas. More on that below.

Natural law is quite simple and quite objective. It is rooted, simply, in an analysis of the various human faculties and characteristics, and a systematic working-out of what those faculties and characteristics imply for us -- for how we ought to think and behave.

Natural law is not a religious doctrine but a philosophical one. It is therefore entirely falsifiable, because it relies on reason, not revelation. Natural law, for the record, precedes the organized Church by several centuries.

Again, that is an assertion that only follows if I'm wrong, which you have already demonstrated you cannot prove because you do not even understand what I'm talking about.

You say Natural Law relies on reason, therefore it is falsifiable. But you are also asserting you're not arrogant because you are not wrong. That something is falsifiable and not wrong in an absolute sense seems to be a contradiction if I understand you correctly. Are we talking about two different things?

In truth, I'm simply pointing out the obvious -- and it IS obvious, once you actually take a moment to consider what natural law is, instead of absurdly chopping it up to irrational religious dogmatism and then acting all aghast when someone insists on its validity.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the proof of God, or natural law here, so I will make no comment.

I'm not talking about a system of civil law but a system of morality.

Right. I'm the one who obeys civil law, rather than philosophically derived law.

That's because you have an understanding of the world that is explicitly irrational. God's existence is both logically necessary and logically unavoidable, as I've demonstrated here.

I believe you are referring to the five proofs of Aquinus. When we had this discussion before, you said that this was beyond physical demonstration (which I agree with), and also you said it was not a proof of Christian tenets, in the sense that there exists a God that has a hand managing details of tornados, human events, hears prayer, etc.

It seems that you are jumping between the philosophy of natural law, and the proofs of Aquinus, sometimes separating the two and sometimes not.

 

[PLC1]

The rhythm method is somewhat different from NFP. It only requires charting, and is therefore insanely unreliable. NFP by contrast involves measurement of fertility-relevant metrics like cervical mucous and basal body temperature. As I said, properly practiced, NFP is more effective than condoms. Where people get pregnant practicing NFP, it's typically because they couldn't practice self-control and wound up having sex during the woman's fertile period.

If it really works, then, why is it not as morally reprehensible as, say for example, the pill?

Well, that's not true -- excess sperm is typically resorbed by the body.

Actually, yes, it is true. If a young man goes long enough without an orgasm, either self induced or otherwise, then he will have an orgasm in his sleep. Well, not totally in his sleep, as it will wake him up.

But it's also irrelevant; nocturnal emission is a reflex, not a willed action, and there is no moral injunction that accrues to actions over which one has absolutely no control.

So, it's only a moral injunction if the individual helps it along a little?

Your philosophy seems to me to lead to anxiety due to guilt over what is a biological function of the human body.

Natural law does not require that every sexual act result in conception; only that every sexual act be open to the possibility of it. That means no contraception, no (intentional) extravaginal ejaculation, etc.

But the NFP actually works, and it is OK?

Many good women practice NFP and would settle for nothing less than a man who shares their aversion to meaningless, fruitless sex.

Good luck to them finding such a man.

 

[Openmind]

Many good women practice NFP and would settle for nothing less than a man who shares their aversion to meaningless, fruitless sex.

Just for your information:
98 Percent Of Catholic Women Use Birth Control Banned By Church
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../98-percent-catholic-women-birth-contr... - CachedApr 14, 2011 – (Reuters) -- Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, . . .

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

You're kidding, right? So, God intended us to invent the thermometer so that women could check the temperature of their vagina before they would give the "okay" sign to their husband to have sex. . . Very romantic, very loving, very stupid! If God had wanted us to have sex ONLY when "the time is right for procreation," HE/She/It would have make men and women feel the "urge" of sexual fulfillment ONLY on the 2 or 3 days when fertilization is most likely!

Once again, I am not saying that "God ... wanted us to have sex ONLY when 'time is right for procreation.'" I am simply saying that morally licit sex is sex that is open to the possibility of conception, even if conception happens to be impossible for that couple or at that particular time.

Well, I repeat myself! What a wonderful husband you would make! I can only imagine your wife waking up several times a week with a soiled sheet in her own bed, while she patiently checks the temperature of her vagina to see WHEN it will be okay to "collect" that precious sperm inside her instead of on her bed linens! You're so funny! I hope you're doing your own laundry!

You're actually suggesting that what is morally licit ought to be determined by the convenience of your laundry schedule?

Humans can decide if/when it is wise to bring another child in this world who is already suffering from over population.

Yes, they can -- by avoiding sex during fertile periods, or abstaining altogether.

Sex is not meaningless or fruitless if it brings two people together, if it reinforce their love and commitment to each other, and if that commitment is the mortar that keeps a family to raise the children they already have, or leads them to have children later in their life, when they both feel it is the right time.

I have not denied any of this. There is a unitive aspect to sex, as well.

All I'm saying is that the sex act, to be morally licit, must be intrinsically ordered toward procreation -- whether or not procreation happens to be possible at that moment.

You have a very, very low opinion of humans, of love, and of personal responsibility! You seem to believe that the ONLY reason humans are on this earth is to procreate. Are you sure your name is not "John Locke?" I wouldn't be surprised! NO one except that person is that narrow minded.

First of all, what in the world has John Locke to do with this?

Second, I said just yesterday that John Locke was an idiot (the philosopher -- I dunno who you're talking about).

Third, I'm getting quite tired of your vapid emoting. I've done you the courtesy of engaging you at the level of adult thinking without resorting to petty sniping. You can at least reciprocate.

"Heaven?" You are really funny! It doesn't matter how articulate you are, or how much you seem to have study theology. . .you have very little emotional IQ or logical reasoning! So, this "selfish God" would rather let His/Her/Its creation live a miserable life, over stretch his world's resources, and die as quickly as possibly from starvation or illnesses. . .to "fill his heaven with souls?????" Give me a break! He/She/It is GOD! He his end goal was to have a "heaven filled with souls," he would just CREATE SOULS. . .not humans to "harvest" souls! This is almost insulting to God in my view!

Well, with due respect, your idea of God is a figment of your imagination utterly unmoored in anything like a rational philosophical or theological understanding of the universe. He is the product of your whims and desires and emotions and your "conscience," not a studied and reasonable consideration of the facts.

And yes, I believe life is a good in its own right and not something to be discarded willy-nilly because you might not have as many material comforts as you wish. Yours is the ideology of abortionists and practitioners of euthanasia and utilitarian dictators. To Hell with it.

Well, sorry to inform you of this. . .you are currently a slave of your own passion! You are a slave of hyper religious, and totally misguided morales that have NO PLACE in this world (or in heaven either by the way!).
Personally, as long as I am alive (thanks to a God that is giving, has a sense of humor, and enjoys seeing his/her/its creation HAPPY and fullfilled) rather than be a slave to ANY Church's dogmatic teachings. Actually, I'm not sure that any official Church would be as secterian as what you seem to be. . .
Do you realize that hyper-religiosity is often a sign of a serious mental illness? Many people with schizophrenia turn to hyper religiousity to get comfort!

If you have nothing useful to contribute to this debate, you can at least recuse yourself from it with dignity, rather than resorting to such a disgraceful show of histrionics.

In the meantime, I'm going to continue puncturing holes in your ill-considered prejudices.

Again, EVERY religion is manmade, and is divisive, which means that it is in fact more AGAINST God's will of unity and happiness than it is working toward God's goal!

I am not making a religious argument but a philosophical one: First, that everything that exists can be said to have a purer "form" or "essence" in which it participates, and that the goodness of a thing is determined by the degree to which it instantiates this essence; second, that the human person also has an essence in which he participates, and therefore his goodness derives from how well he instantiates it; and third, that because man is partly a physical creature, that essence is necessarily partly informed by biology and evolution.

And biology and evolution make clear that the human sexual faculty serves the end of procreation.

Just by stating that, you are demonstrating arrogance! Obviously, you are once again using circular reasoning: You are not arrogant because you are correct in your beliefs, but. . .I still do not see what makes you so sure you're right. . .so, your "non-arrogance" is basically based on your "arrogance" that tells you you are right!. . .nothing more!

And yet I've been making the argument for some time now, but I'll make it again:

If goodness consists in exercising one's faculties in a manner consistent with their telos, and if the human sexual faculty is oriented toward procreation, than morality demands that every sexual act be intrinsically open to life, even if procreation happens to be impossible for that couple or at that particular time. Simply because that is the essence of the sexual act, and goodness consists in exemplifying that essence.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

You say Natural Law relies on reason, therefore it is falsifiable. But you are also asserting you're not arrogant because you are not wrong. That something is falsifiable and not wrong in an absolute sense seems to be a contradiction if I understand you correctly. Are we talking about two different things?

Falsifiability does not mean that a thing is false, only that it can be proven false if, in fact, it is false. Any scientific hypothesis, even those supported by the evidence, are, in principle, falsifiable.

At any rate, this is a useless diversion. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. Whether or not you approve of my tone is irrelevant.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the proof of God, or natural law here, so I will make no comment.

Well, both, but in that context, natural law specifically.

I believe you are referring to the five proofs of Aquinus. When we had this discussion before, you said that this was beyond physical demonstration (which I agree with), and also you said it was not a proof of Christian tenets, in the sense that there exists a God that has a hand managing details of tornados, human events, hears prayer, etc.

I don't believe any Catholic claims that God manages the ecology of the earth (Protestants might, but in my experience they are profoundly foolish people). But yes, the Unmoved Mover/First Cause argument is simply a proof for the existence of God and for certain aspects of His existence.

Natural law derives analogously from some of the same premises.

It seems that you are jumping between the philosophy of natural law, and the proofs of Aquinus, sometimes separating the two and sometimes not.

I only brought up God in the first place because you asked what I believe the consequences are of living a life in defiance of natural law. As a Catholic, I believe the answer is you consign yourself to separation from God.

But you don't need to presuppose the existence of God to arrive at the conclusions of natural law -- which is why, prior to that, I had been making purely philosophical arguments. As I said previously, natural law philosophy predates the Church by centuries.