The Christianity Thread

USAF@"16: But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way. 17: Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold" (Deut. 17).

The "telos" of homosexual acts (and also heterosexual acts) is enjoyment of the self and of the partner. As in, people have sex because they like having sex, and they like spending time with their partners. To believe that the only purpose of sex for all people is reproduction is naïve and selfish, and betrays a lack of understanding of human behavior.

By the way, for people who don't speak philosojingo:

EDIT: Let me go dig up my other post where I explained why I believe that "sex = making babies ALWAYS" is a selfish belief.

Here it is. Fresh from The Philipino politics thread:

edited 24th Oct '11 9:32:59 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Why does anne get to say cool shit? o_o

Also, I suppose, joy, that it comes down to interpretation. Remember, the combination of differing translations and comprehensions of laws can lead to very different ways of perceiving Biblical stuff. What the Israelites say may very well not be what we see today.

edited 24th Oct '11 9:33:06 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

Everything in the OP has been discussed before and on a higher level elsewhere but...

This is wrong.

>Sin: an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Now this is a simplistic definition of sin, but do you really think the very act of labeling something an "immoral act" is not OK? Plenty of people might label things I do as sinful as well. And even though you don't use the word "sin", you still place a pretty blanket judgement on a class of behavior.

And there's nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with the very concept of immoral behavior, and as much as some antitheists might protest, there's nothing wrong with the very concept of divine law either.

Well, there's nothing wrong with divine law, so long as it's kept out of government. I.e. get a secular justification for your morals, or they can't be put in a secular government.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Okay, philosojingo has got to be one of my favorite portmanteaux now.

Ring-a-ding! One point. For the most part.

But would you argue that there's nothing wrong with divine law that requires a woman must not be a virgin before she can be executed, for example?

edited 24th Oct '11 9:48:17 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

I might agree with this to an extent, but I think a lot of what goes into secular government is going to be personal bias and personal moral opinion, with or without religious belief in divine law shaping that.

Also true. The US is supposed to be a secular government, but we have laws against gay marriage and such entirely because a significant number of the people in the government are fundamentalist conservatives.

edited 24th Oct '11 9:50:13 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

Well, sure. The subjectivity of morality means that, IMO, the ideal government is one that allows and enables people to prosper without worrying about persecution from others, and which attempts to make sure nobody is kept from their happiness, under the assumption they're willing to work for it.

Religion in government—Christianity or otherwise—is not conducive to this...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Yeah, but I'm sure the majority of Christians at least don't still believe that all sex that isn't done to make a baby is wrong.

I honestly don't think any Christian believes this, sounds like a slight butchering of Catholic belief.

But even your own assessment of what makes for an ideal government is based off your own subjective morality (as you openly admit). What if, for example, part of your religion is enabling people to prosper without worrying about persecution from others? What if part of your religion is honoring human rights or freedoms? Much of the abolitionist movement was hugely Christian. Even the separation of church and state was to an extent shaped by Protestant/Catholic clashes in Europe. Even if you have no religion, our culture in general is so shaped by religious type thinking, and how can we say what is religious and what isn't? In the end, it all boils down to the same subjective values, which very well might be influenced by religion.

And even if you say that its all OK so long as the govt doesn't declare an official religion...all officially Christian nations have been pretty remarkably free in terms of human rights. Some of the best places to live have state Churches, whereas officially atheist governments have been nearly universally terrible.

Yeah, a good number of Christians are progressive and have a modern attitude on sex and such things. There are many different kinds of Christians, after all, as there are many different kinds of Muslims, Buddhists, Odinists, etc.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

God didn't give me opposable thumbs to play videogames.

When I play videogames, I am misusing my thumbs.

When I have sex with a condom, I am misusing my vagina.

Why is the one of these misuses that is not frivolous and wasteful, but a lovely experience of intimacy and caring and trust the sinful one?

edited 24th Oct '11 10:17:07 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Because the people who believe in or teach this belief are either naïve (Catholic priests are celibate and have very little exposure to women in contrast to men, after all), or trying to control other people, or both.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

It actually has its basis in the belief not so much in "misuse of the vagina" (huh?) but in the belief that human sexuality should be open to life. (And furthermore this openness to new life is virtuous in itself). You can be intimate and caring and be open to life as well, as is the case for most Catholics I know who practice NFP.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:19:00 PM by Tiph

I've dated Catholics all my post-pubescent life, and this is the first I hear about openness to life. What might this be?

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Well MANY (most?!) Catholics don't practice NFP, a lot of Catholics are very lax when it comes to the teaching on the 6th commandment. I know a lot of super religious Catholics who go to church and adore the Pope yet use condoms all the same so there you go. Anyway....

Openness to life is basically being open to the possibility of new life. No artificial birth control (ABC), letting the man finish inside the woman, etc. The Catholic Church basically thinks there are two aspects to sexuality which should not be divorced from each other—the procreative (the new life, or at least the possibility), and the unitive (the intimacy and the togetherness which strengthens the couple and allows them to become a better family). Humane Vitae might be an interesting document to read if you want to know more.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:24:58 PM by Tiph

Open to life as opposed to what, closed to life?

What is "closed to life" about wanting to have sex purely for the sake of enjoying the act? This "open to life" idea seems to be based on some notion that people who have sex for enjoyment are opposed to ever having children, which is hardly true.

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

That sounds a lot like flipping a coin to choose a career path.

Having a child requires money, time, and energy. It might sound very poetic to leave it up to chance, but many people do not have the luxury to comfortably squeeze one out every time they accidentally fuck on a fertile day.

Besides which, you aren't addressing the real difference of opinions here, which is that sex has other purposes aside from the procreative one. What if I am, for the time being, closed to life? I should just not have sex, I suppose?

edited 24th Oct '11 10:30:49 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

"Closed to life" is exactly the phraseology used, yes. Having sex for enjoyment is fine, so long as you are open to life at the same time, and don't try to deliberately sabotage the body by using artificial birth control or engage in sexual practices which cause the sexual act to be closed to life—for example, withdrawal method is considered "closed to life".

Is it difficult? Sometimes, yes. On the other hand, the Catholic Church calls us to perfection. From the Catholic couples I know who practice NFP, its difficult but its something they are more than willing to bear, and honestly most say their relationship benefits from it as well.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:28:56 PM by Tiph

I thought the amount of Catholics that where opposed to the Church's position was crazy high. At least, that's what most the polls seem to suggest.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:28:54 PM by Justice4243

Justice is a joy to the godly, but it terrifies evildoers.Proverbs21:15 FimFiction account.

Ayep. 6th Commandment teachings have to be the most ignored, and are honestly scarcely known unless you are the sort of person who seeks out Catholic definitions of some things. I know so many divorced or ABC using Catholics its not funny.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:33:56 PM by Tiph

Kash: Ring-a-ding! Have a cookie.

The rationale of the person who uses birth control is this: "I enjoy having sex, but for financial or personal reasons, I do not wish to have a child. Thus, I shall use birth control so that I can enjoy the freedom of having sex without worrying about the possibility of bringing an unwanted child into this world, and when the time comes when I do want a child, I'll simply have unprotected sex and aim for a child."

Tiph: If people choose to do that and they enjoy it, good for them. However, it is selfish to expect others to adhere to the same practice, and false to believe that sex without reproduction has no purpose at all.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:34:53 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

?? I honestly don't expect non-Catholics to adhere to Catholic standards for morality. (Most Catholics don't, as Justice points out—its ridiculously difficult and a lot of nominal Catholics are able to just shrug it off as being written by a bunch of celibates anyway).

But I think the choice of the word "selfish" is sort of odd, considering how I wouldn't get much out of it either way.

This is all true, and isn't denied by the Church. But the official position is that instead of artificially closing ourselves off from life, we support social programs to help people raise families and/or use natural family planning. Of course, there can be struggle involved in that, and so I do sort of see it your way as well, naturally.

And yes, the Church believes sex is Unitive as well, just that you cannot separate that Unitive aspect from the Procreative one.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:36:05 PM by Tiph

Well, maybe you don't, which is cool. But there are people out there who preach that view like it is the only right way to practice sex, and other ways are wrong. It is those people who are being selfish, because they are telling others to put away their freedoms to satisfy their idealistic worldview.

I've brought up an analogy before. It's like being upset because people in other houses don't play a card game you like by your house rules, so you impose your house rules on everyone you know who plays the game, because you believe that your house rules are the only right way to play the game.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:40:51 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.