What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

I appreciate your assessment and questions. 

By "pure and authentic self" I just mean that the act itself remains in it's original form without being changed in order to render it infertile. I understand your comparison about the function of your fists. But since sex is sacred (because it creates something sacred), it must be handled with much more honor and care than a fist. Also, in your examples you speak about things that are immoral... beating creatures and acting violently. Those awful things are not good comparisons to the creation of new human life. 

They may not be..Catholic...but they are -consequences- of the same process you used, the same argument, if followed through consistently...without special pleading..and that's precisely the problem.  

If you believe the story about Onan in the OT was written word for word, literally as it happened, then yes, you are correct about the last sentence there. As I said, I believe the OT was written allegorically. I believe the point of this story was to teach that contraception is immoral, and that's an important point. But I do not believe God literally "killed" Onan, or that a man named Onan even existed. I cannot speak for those who think otherwise, though.

It doesn't -matter- whether or not I believe the story to be literal...it is a portion of the catholic position on why we shouldn't use contraception.  Even as allegory..it is evil...it doesn;t become less immoral because it's "just a story" about god killing someone.  They're all stories............but this one is pretty disgusting. Agreed? And no, Catholic, it's not an important point just because you or your church claims it to be..but if it were..perhaps they should have taken just a little more time and done it right...don't you think? After all...they could have told it any way they chose...just being a story and all.....is this the effort your faith is willing to put in...should it be surprised to see it's returns on that effort diminishing?

Comments on that piece regarding vicarious redemption, btw?

[Catholic_Lady]

I appreciate your assessment and questions. 

By "pure and authentic self" I just mean that the act itself remains in it's original form without being changed in order to render it infertile. I understand your comparison about the function of your fists. But since sex is sacred (because it creates something sacred), it must be handled with much more honor and care than a fist. Also, in your examples you speak about things that are immoral... beating creatures and acting violently. Those awful things are not good comparisons to the creation of new human life. 

They may not be..Catholic...but they are -consequences- of the same process you used, the same argument, if followed through consistently...without special pleading..and that's precisely the problem.

 
Well you have to compare apples to apples. The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act. That's what sets it apart from your other examples.

If you believe the story about Onan in the OT was written word for word, literally as it happened, then yes, you are correct about the last sentence there. As I said, I believe the OT was written allegorically. I believe the point of this story was to teach that contraception is immoral, and that's an important point. But I do not believe God literally "killed" Onan, or that a man named Onan even existed. I cannot speak for those who think otherwise, though.

It doesn't -matter- whether or not I believe the story to be literal...it is a portion of the catholic position on why we shouldn't use contraception.  Even as allegory..it is evil...it doesn;t become less immoral because it's "just a story" about god killing someone.  They're all stories............but this one is pretty disgusting.  Agreed?  And no, Catholic, it's not an important point just because you or your church claims it to be..but if it were..perhaps they should have taken just a little more time and done it right...don't you think?  After all...they could have told it any way they chose...just being a story and all.....is this the effort your faith is willing to put in...should it be surprised to see it's returns on that effort diminishing?

Comments on that piece regarding vicarious redemption, btw?

-Yes, the story sounds horrible to us now... as 21st century Americans. But you have to remember that it was written thousands of years ago. Different time, different culture, different style of writing, different way of explaining things, and different language. Perhaps to the people of the time it made the most sense to understand it that way. Either way, nothing about Church teaching condones murdering someone for contracepting. So rest assured, there's no need for concern.

-I meant that it is an important point in the realm of Catholic morality. I meant no disrespect to you. I know you disagree, and that's fine.

- I read what you wrote but it was long, so haven't gotten around to responding yet.

[Longhorn]

Lady....how do you know Jesus is god?

[rexbeccarox]

The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act.

... but why is sex a "sacred act"?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well you have to compare apples to apples. The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act. That's what sets it apart from your other examples.

Not when we're considering an argument that establishes the moral status of some act.  By your stated argument....beating the shit out of people with my fist -should also- be a sacred act, and it's also the "pure and authentic self" of my fists.  Special pleading doesn't work...if it's truth you're looking to find. Either you find your own explanation convincing or you don't......

-Yes, the story sounds horrible to us now... as 21st century Americans. But you have to remember that it was written thousands of years ago. Different time, different culture, different style of writing, different way of explaining things, and different language. Perhaps to the people of the time it made the most sense to understand it that way. Either way, nothing about Church teaching condones murdering someone for contracepting. So rest assured, there's no need for concern.  

When did you turn into a moral subjectivist...was that before or after you turned into a moral utilitarian..and before or after you argued -against- moral subjectivism and moral utility - asserting moral objectivism?  My concern isn;t that god or any catholic will ever kill me for having used a condom,though It may well be a justifiable fear...check out your much more -currently- zealous muslim buddies and what they get up to. My concern is that your religion has subverted both your ability to reason, and your moral composition. Not just yours....many, many people. And that's a recipe for bad shit....again, take a look at your muslim coreligionists.

-I meant that it is an important point in the realm of Catholic morality. I meant no disrespect to you. I know you disagree, and that's fine. 

-and that being the case...they -really- fucked that one up with a story about god killing a man for refusing to bust a nut in his sister-in-law, don't you think?

As a point of interest, they actually told it the way that they did because of jewish custom, or purportedly so..in any rate, at the time. It was his duty to impregnate her. The penalty for failure was to be shunned, to be shamed..not killed. The spilling of the seed on the ground was what got him executed by the almighty. This was law they were establishing...they didn't mean it figuratively. This is also a well attested catholic position......and explanation for the narrative. Your constant retreat to allegory does not...and I've commented upon -why- numerous times, rescue the moral status of the narrative. The villain of a story is no less villainous for having been fictional. Hanibal Lector, is a bad man, a description of a bad man, an example of what it means to be a bad man -regardless of his being a character in a book. I would contend that your god, both literally and allegorically, both in the OT and the NT..is a "bad man"..a description of a "bad man", and an example of what it means to -be- a "bad man". It's not his fault...it's just how he was written, but you -are- responsible for whatever insight and integrity you wish to approach the subject with.

"Catholic morality", is, to me, a bit like jumbo shrimp and sanitary landfills. Everyone uses the word, but no one has any. Only "Catholic fealty".

[Catholic_Lady]

The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act.

... but why is sex a "sacred act"?

We believe so because it is *the* act that brings new life into the word. And we believe life is sacred.

Note: (since I know it will come up) I am in no way saying that the only purpose for sex is procreation.

---

When did you turn into a moral subjectivist...was that before or after you turned into a moral utilitarian..and before or after you argued -against- moral subjectivism and moral utility - asserting moral objectivism?  My concern isn;t that god or any catholic will ever kill me for having used a condom,though It may well be a justifiable fear...check out your much more -currently- zealous muslim buddies and what they get up to.  My concern is that your religion has subverted both your ability to reason, and your moral composition.  Not just yours....many, many people.  And that's a recipe for bad shit....again, take a look at your muslim coreligionists.

Please read carefully. I never said it was ever moral to murder anyone. I was talking about the style of speaking and writing of the time and place. You have to put things into perspective and try to see it through the eyes of someone other than a white man from 21st century America. ;-)

[rexbeccarox]

... but why is sex a "sacred act"?

We believe so because it is *the* act that brings new life into the word. And we believe life is sacred.

Note: (since I know it will come up) I am in no way saying that the only purpose for sex is procreation.

But you very directly contradict yourself with those two statements, along with the foundational views which you continue to back (ie. contraception, homosexuality)... how do you not see this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Please read carefully. I never said it was ever moral to murder anyone. I was talking about the style of speaking and writing of the time and place. You have to put things into perspective and try to see it through the eyes of someone other than a white man from 21st century America. ;-)

-Said the moral objectivist......

No one can be this clueless without help.....sigh.

[Nope]

We believe so because it is *the* act that brings new life into the word. And we believe life is sacred.

Note: (since I know it will come up) I am in no way saying that the only purpose for sex is procreation.

But you very directly contradict yourself with those two statements, along with the foundational views which you continue to back (ie. contraception, homosexuality)... how do you not see this?

I realize that sacred is a religious term but it is because I believe that life is important that  I want people to have basic things such as adequate nourishment, education, health care,etc.  

What does the phrase, life is sacred mean to you Catholic Lady?

If you believe that sex has more purpose than procreation then why is it wrong for two women to express their love through sex? Why shouldn't parents use birth control if they aren't having sex to reproduce?

[Nope]

Please read carefully. I never said it was ever moral to murder anyone. I was talking about the style of speaking and writing of the time and place. You have to put things into perspective and try to see it through the eyes of someone other than a white man from 21st century America. ;-)

-Said the moral objectivist......

No one can be this clueless without help.....sigh.

The bible says that god never changes so Jesus is the same god described in the Old Testament.