Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 I think he has a motor dysfunction. His rocking back and forth at the camera is nauseating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 He beings with different a priori assumptions and therefor arrives at different conclusions than me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1257908675' post='2000114'] There is a difference between abstaining from a positive good and doing a moral evil. It is possible that one may never hear music with one's ears. It is not morally evil to not listen to music. It is a moral evil to use one's ears to eavesdrop on a conversation you have no right to hear. That is an abuse of their purpose. You may not morally use your tongue to spread lies about others. That is an abuse of the purpose of the tongue/gift of speech. And so on and so forth. ~Sternhauser [/quote] Mate, again that's not what I asked. I didn't ask "is it immoral not to exercise the function of your eyes/ears/reproductive organs". I asked how you get from "sex can be procreative" to "sex must be procreative". Eaves dropping isn't sinful because it's a misuse of the ears (lol) but because it is an invasion of someones privacy. It harms another. Its morality/immorality has nothing to do with the fact that the ears are not made to hear other people's conversations (see how ridiculous this is starting to sound). That is not analogous to homosexual sex because, according to the Church, homosexual sex is wrong because it's a misuse of the sexual organs. Stop dodging and give a response that actually answers the question because this is getting tedious very quickly. Edited November 11, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='10 November 2009 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1257914663' post='2000243'] Mate, again that's not what I asked. I didn't ask "is it immoral not to exercise the function of your eyes/ears/reproductive organs". I asked how you get from "sex can be procreative" to "sex must be procreative". Eaves dropping isn't sinful because it's a misuse of the ears (lol) but because it is an invasion of someones privacy. It harms another. Its morality/immorality has nothing to do with the fact that the ears are not made to hear other people's conversations (see how ridiculous this is starting to sound). That is not analogous to homosexual sex because, according to the Church, homosexual sex is wrong because it's a misuse of the sexual organs. Stop dodging and give a response that actually answers the question because this is getting tedious very quickly. [/quote] Maturity is asleep, darling. Stopper that stuff for the remainder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1257914663' post='2000243'] Mate, again that's not what I asked. I didn't ask "is it immoral not to exercise the function of your eyes/ears/reproductive organs". I asked how you get from "sex can be procreative" to "sex must be procreative". Eaves dropping isn't sinful because it's a misuse of the ears (lol) but because it is an invasion of someones privacy. It harms another. Its morality/immorality has nothing to do with the fact that the ears are not made to hear other people's conversations (see how ridiculous this is starting to sound). That is not analogous to homosexual sex because, according to the Church, homosexual sex is wrong because it's a misuse of the sexual organs. Stop dodging and give a response that actually answers the question because this is getting tedious very quickly. [/quote] I am not trying to dodge your question. Sexual intercourse is, of its [i]nature[/i], procreative. Masturbation, mutual or otherwise, is not sexual intercourse. It is an abuse of the sexual faculty. It is wrong because it is a contradiction of the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse, which, of its nature, must be open to the possibility of life. Masturbation, mutual or otherwise, is not open to the possibility of new life. ~Sternhauser Edited November 11, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark of the Cross Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Can someone get me a bucket? I feel dizzy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 " It is wrong because it is a contradiction of the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse, which, of its nature,[b] must be open to the possibility of life.[/b] " Why? I'm posing a distinction to you, Sternhauser. I think you're saying that because "the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse" can lead to children then it must always lead to children. But you haven't provided any reasoning to get from A to B. Can is not must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sternhauser Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 01:17 AM' timestamp='1257916666' post='2000308'] " It is wrong because it is a contradiction of the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse, which, of its nature,[b] must be open to the possibility of life.[/b] " Why? I'm posing a distinction to you, Sternhauser. I think you're saying that because "the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse" can lead to children then it must always lead to children. But you haven't provided any reasoning to get from A to B. Can is not must. [/quote] Correct. Can is not must. I never said that every sexual act must result in a child. I said the sexual act must be procreative. "Procreative" has more than a physical meaning. It has a spiritual meaning that applies to couples who are beyond their childbearing years. "Must be open to the possibility of life," means the two people having actual sexual intercourse cannot intend to shut out the possibility of new human life. If a new life is not conceived, that is all right. But, neither of the two intrinsic purposes of sexual intercourse must be excluded from the sexual act. ~Sternhauser Edited November 11, 2009 by Sternhauser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='09 November 2009 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1257803863' post='1999060'] Interestingly his flippant remark about things that deviate from the norm is an expression of what Christians mean by the use of the philosophical / theological term "natural law." Thus, from a Christian perspective the norm is what is natural to human beings, and deviation from the norm is contrary to our nature (and you will notice that I did not say simply "nature" as some kind of abstract concept, but "our" nature, i.e., human nature). Alas, he is using the term [i]natural[/i] to stand simply for reality, while a Christian uses the word [i]natural[/i] to stand for the properties innately present within a human being, and that when properly energized bring the person in question to his proper end. [/quote] This is what happens when self-styled-intellectual college dropouts at Starbucks get a hold of a videocamera. They have pseudointellectual conversations...dipping their toes into stuff they talked about in some humanities course as if they had earned a theology degree. There is really little substance to anything they say. I hope the metaphysical implications of my using the word 'substance' doesn't get taken out of context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='10 November 2009 - 11:52 PM' timestamp='1257918745' post='2000387'] This is what happens when self-styled-intellectual college dropouts at Starbucks get a hold of a videocamera. They have pseudointellectual conversations...dipping their toes into stuff they talked about in some humanities course as if they had earned a theology degree. There is really little substance to anything they say. I hope the metaphysical implications of my using the word 'substance' doesn't get taken out of context. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veridicus Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='OraProMe' date='11 November 2009 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1257916666' post='2000308'] " It is wrong because it is a contradiction of the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse, which, of its nature,[b] must be open to the possibility of life.[/b] " Why? I'm posing a distinction to you, Sternhauser. I think you're saying that because "the purpose of the sexual faculty, which is sexual intercourse" can lead to children then it must always lead to children. But you haven't provided any reasoning to get from A to B. Can is not must. [/quote] Can does not necessarily or logically imply must as you assert. Please define "sex" for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='09 November 2009 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1257804258' post='1999065'] Nope. Homosexual activity, whether done by irrational animals or by human beings, is contrary to nature. The only difference is that with dumb animals there is no culpability because they do not have the capacity to reflect upon their proper natural energies, while human beings who act contrary to their nature are in most cases culpable because they are sentient, i.e., they are rational beings with the ability to understand their proper end. [/quote] If it occurs in nature then it's natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' date='11 November 2009 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1257918745' post='2000387'] This is what happens when self-styled-intellectual college dropouts at Starbucks get a hold of a videocamera. They have pseudointellectual conversations...dipping their toes into stuff they talked about in some humanities course as if they had earned a theology degree. There is really little substance to anything they say. I hope the metaphysical implications of my using the word 'substance' doesn't get taken out of context. [/quote] Because you need a theology degree to spout off unsubstantiated, vacuous conjecture about "energies" and the "ultimate end" of the sexual faculties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 November 2009 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1257917559' post='2000348'] Correct. Can is not must. I never said that every sexual act must result in a child. I said the sexual act must be procreative. "Procreative" has more than a physical meaning. It has a spiritual meaning that applies to couples who are beyond their childbearing years. "Must be open to the possibility of life," means the two people having actual sexual intercourse cannot intend to shut out the possibility of new human life. If a new life is not conceived, that is all right. But, neither of the two intrinsic purposes of sexual intercourse must be excluded from the sexual act. ~Sternhauser [/quote] None of your last three posts have answered my question. Thanks. Edited November 11, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 [quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 November 2009 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1257901633' post='1999989'] Reproductive organs were designed for reproduction. Any other use is a contradiction of their purpose. ~Sternhauser [/quote] Male urination must be a grave sin then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now