What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm hardly wasting my time CL. I hope that your interaction with me either deepens your knowledge of your own faith, or leads you from it entirely. I'm happy either way.

Vatican I

confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing"

Pope Pius XII

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own"

The catechism (ccc 390)

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

Tell me why you disagree with your church, your pope, and your catechism....and why you believe that you are knowledgeable -at all- regarding your faith given the fact the you have been completely, unambiguously wrong on every portion of your claim?

[Nope]

Which is an entirely natural reaction. Even if you enter into a relationship with someone at some point, the first impression is necessarily visual attraction. The objectifying part is only inserted to create yet another sin.

I agree that it is natural. It is also natural for me to lash out at my husband when I'm upset about something that he is no part of.

But we, as humans and not cows, can still make the choice. We can choose to fantasize about having sex with the people we see on the street while our spouse is at home waiting for us, or we can choose to simply acknowledge their sexiness, and move on. I can choose to be snippy with my husband when I'm in a bad mood about something else, or I can choose to put aside my natural feelings and treat him with kindness.

I think that the problem might be how we have a view that is so radically different than yours that I don't know how we would ever reach an agreement on this issue.

To me, there is nothing wrong with having a sexual fantasy about someone other than my husband as long as I don't dwell or become obsessed with that person. I don't feel threatened if my husband has a fantasy about someone else either. This doesn't have to do with self control because it isn't something I see as negative. ( I know that you said that we aren't cows but I assume that you meant that we have more self control than animals)

[abaris]

( I know that you said that we aren't cows but I assume that you meant that we have more self control than animals)

Which is something that always makes my hair stand on end and also one of the thing bothering me the most about organised religion. This looking down attitude on the world surrounding us.

[Catholic_Lady]

But we, as humans and not cows, can still make the choice. We can choose to fantasize about having sex with the people we see on the street while our spouse is at home waiting for us, or we can choose to simply acknowledge their sexiness, and move on. I can choose to be snippy with my husband when I'm in a bad mood about something else, or I can choose to put aside my natural feelings and treat him with kindness.

But it's walking a fine line. First, animals make choices too. They don't mate with everyone, but only with those partners that are willing to have them. Some even have lifelong relationships. Second, in my mind you're doing nothing bad to your relationship by imagining having sex with another person. Nobody's feelings get hurt, if you don't act on that impulse. And third, even the snippy part can be argued, since sometimes it's better for a relationship to  have it out than to pretend. It's all situational and there's no user manual on how to act as a human being.

Fair enough about the animals. They do make choices, but I would argue not to the same extent that we do.

I still retain that it is better to treat your spouse with kindness than to be rude to them when whatever it is that's upsetting you is not their fault. You can talk about how you feel and vent without lashing out. (and I say this as someone who struggles greatly with it)

But the point I was trying to make is that just because we have a natural impulse to do something, doesn't mean we should never try to take the higher road. We may have natural impulses, but we still have the choice to act on them or not.

---

I'm hardly wasting my time CL.  I hope that your interaction with me either deepens your knowledge of your own faith, or leads you from it entirely.  I'm happy either way.

Vatican I

confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing"

Pope Pius XII

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own"

The catechism (ccc 390)

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

Tell me why you disagree with your church, your pope, and your catechism....and why you believe that you are knowledgeable -at all- regarding your faith given the fact the you have been completely, unambiguously wrong on every portion of your claim?

Nothing you post above contradicts anything I have said. And if you think it does, then I have done a poor job of being clear.

[The Grand Nudger]

Stunning and completely -thorough- attitude.  They not only believe that they know the truth, they believe that they know the truth -better- than anyone else by simple virtue of being themselves.  No amount of showing them, plainly and incontrovertibly, that they are incorrect in these assumptions will change their opinion, they refuse to acknowledge any misapprehension on their part whatsoever, and they will treat you with derision and dismissive contempt for having had the audacity to remind them that they are human, and therefore fallible (in addition to many other things)...... which each of them will gladly pay lip service to, but show by their actions that they have simply said whatever was required to get you off their backs so they can go back to being the pompous assholes that they are..

They are arrogant and certain in face of contrary fact.  They clearly believe that they are, by faith and affiliation, superior to everyone and everything that is or ever was on this rock in all matters of truth and value.


@CL ...........
Yes, it does..you claimed that you were free to interpret the OT (genesis specifically) as allegory.  You are not.  

You are not free to interpret any of that as allegory (as explained by your church, by your pope, and by your catechism..unambiguously), and because you are not free to interpret any of that as allegory, you are plainly wrong.  Further, because you cannot interpret any of that as allegory, any contradictory or mutually exclusive proposition relative to any of those immovable doctrines -cannot- be held to be true.

You also claimed that you knew the position of the catholic church better than I.  You do not...again, as explained to you by your church, your pope, and your catechism.

Deny your church or deny my claims (and in so doing....deny your church, lol)...but pick one and stick with it..this is all I ask. 

[Cato]

My consideration of the lust conversation requires me to reference the earlier conversation here or another thread regarding *the act* of sex being sacred. If I remember correctly, CL opined that the act is considered sacred because life is considered sacred. I would agree that lie is sacred, if the religious overtones of the word are dropped. My life is special because of its brevity in the grand scheme of things and the fact that I only have one shot at it. 

I cannot agree that sex should be considered sacred simply because of the value placed on life. Indeed sex can result in life, but as has already been established there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy sex. Are only those times where sex is engaged in specifically for procreation considered sacred? The only reason to clump other variants of sex into the sanctification of *the act* is for crowd control purposes. The prohibition of spilling seed can be used to support this idea.

Now we come to lust. So what is really being claimed is that sex is sacred, but I'm not allowed to consider it except in a very prescribed manner or else I have committed a sin with potentially severe consequences. This is a thought crime. Thought crimes are inimical to any just moral theory. There is nothing inherently immoral with lust; there's no victim. Effectively criminalizing the act or the 'improper' thought of it in order to influence behavior is the true crime here.

The other problem I have with religious notions of sex as it pertains to morality is that plenty of other species, existing and extinct, have been engaging in *the act* for quite some time. Religions also ignore that we had been shagging ourselves into the future for almost 200,000 years before Abraham's god showed up and attempted to take some spice out of life. Furthermore, taking advice on healthy sexual relations from an organization whose leadership takes oaths of celibacy is akin to scheduling an appointment with a proctologist when you have a toothache, unless of course your tooth needs to be exposed before the dentist can help you.

[Catholic_Lady]

I agree that it is natural. It is also natural for me to lash out at my husband when I'm upset about something that he is no part of.

But we, as humans and not cows, can still make the choice. We can choose to fantasize about having sex with the people we see on the street while our spouse is at home waiting for us, or we can choose to simply acknowledge their sexiness, and move on. I can choose to be snippy with my husband when I'm in a bad mood about something else, or I can choose to put aside my natural feelings and treat him with kindness.

I think that the problem might be how we have a view that is so radically different than yours that I don't know how we would ever reach an agreement on this issue.

To me, there is nothing wrong with having a sexual fantasy about someone other than my husband as long as I don't dwell or become obsessed with that person. I don't feel threatened if my husband has a fantasy about someone else either. This doesn't have to do with self control because it isn't something I see as negative. ( I know that you said that we aren't cows but I assume that you meant that we have more self control than animals)

That is fine. I respect your differences.

But would you still agree that we are perfectly capable of not acting on impulses, and that sometimes it is best not to? Not just with sexuality, but in general?

And yes, that is what I meant. We are more self aware.

---

( I know that you said that we aren't cows but I assume that you meant that we have more self control than animals)

Which is something that always makes my hair stand on end and also one of the thing bothering me the most about organised religion. This looking down attitude on the world surrounding us.

Just to clarify, I am a huge animal lover.

I just meant that humans are more intelligent and more self aware.

---

My consideration of the lust conversation requires me to reference the earlier conversation here or another thread regarding *the act* of sex being sacred. If I remember correctly, CL opined that the act is considered sacred because life is considered sacred. I would agree that lie is sacred, if the religious overtones of the word are dropped. My life is special because of its brevity in the grand scheme of things and the fact that I only have one shot at it. 

I cannot agree that sex should be considered sacred simply because of the value placed on life. Indeed sex can result in life, but as has already been established there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy sex. Are only those times where sex is engaged in specifically for procreation considered sacred? The only reason to clump other variants of sex into the sanctification of *the act* is for crowd control purposes. The prohibition of spilling seed can be used to support this idea.

I understand that sex has other purposes besides procreation, and that it is perfectly moral to have sex even when procreation isn't intended.

But what I have said is that despite those 2 things, sex is still *the* act that creates life. Even though it doesn't create it all the time, even though it doesn't need to be the intended result, the fact still remains that sex is the means by which we create life.

For that reason, I believe sex is intrinsically, in and of itself, sacred. Regardless. I know you don't agree, but do you understand what I am saying?

[IATIA]

I just meant that humans are more intelligent ...

How many humans do you know that could survive in a rain forest with no tools or technology?

And does that mean humans of extremely low intelligence are less that a highly intelligent great ape?

... and more self aware.

Are you sure that you are more aware than a dolphin or great ape?

[abaris]

We may have natural impulses, but we still have the choice to act on them or not.

A mindgame is just that - in your mind. It's not acting on any impulse and has no consequences. It's not acting, since it's only thoughts. That's where your understanding of religion makes you talk an entirely different language

[Catholic_Lady]

Now we come to lust. So what is really being claimed is that sex is sacred, but I'm not allowed to consider it except in a very prescribed manner or else I have committed a sin with potentially severe consequences. This is a thought crime. Thought crimes are inimical to any just moral theory. There is nothing inherently immoral with lust; there's no victim. Effectively criminalizing the act or the 'improper' thought of it in order to influence behavior is the true crime here.

I just have an honest question for you regarding the whole thought crime thing real fast:

Do you think someone who hates gays and would love to have them all tortured and killed and actively day dreams about it for pleasure (yet is too cowardly to actually do anything about it outside his head), is still doing something wrong? Or a better question - does the fact that he chooses to think that way about gays and have that opinion about them still effects his character even if he never acts on it outside his head?