12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIf you can produce serious scientific evidence that NOT engaging in masturbation causes serious damage to body or psyche, you have a point.
Let's take masturbation.
The vast majority of experts in sexuality say that it is a healthy, [b]natural,
normal activity. The Roman Catholic Church says otherwise.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/sexualhealth/white-020904-masturbation.xml
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/23414/29001/266765.html? ...[text shortened]... l[/b] moral law when a baby starts playing with itself as early as 18 months
of age?
Nemesio[/b]
12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeFor that matter one needs a proper definition of "healthy, natural and normal"...
If you can produce serious scientific evidence that NOT engaging in masturbation causes serious damage to body or psyche, you have a point.
Healthy - not directly detrimental to your health
Natural and Normal - a socially accepted norm
By this definition abortion would also qualify.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by Halitose.... and what constitutes "natural" when we speak about the "natural moral law".
For that matter one needs a proper definition of "healthy, natural and normal"...
Healthy - not directly detrimental to your health
Natural and Normal - a socially accepted norm
By this definition abortion would also qualify.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood point: "Natural" and "normal" are not necessarily the same thing.
.... and what constitutes "natural" when we speak about the "natural moral law".
"Normal" in one sense is a statistical term--e.g., a "normal" distribution in which the mode, median and mean all occur at the same point, around which the rest of the distribution is evenly arrayed. This seems related at least to the notion of a societal norm--i.e. what most people agree upon; outside a given range (so many standard deviation units from the mean) is what could be considered "abnormal." What is "normal" for a society need not be natural at all; and an "abnormal" trait need not be unnatural.
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeEr. That is not the Church's stance. The Church states that to engage in
If you can produce serious scientific evidence that NOT engaging in masturbation causes serious damage to body or psyche, you have a point.
masturbation is unnatural and sinful. This flies in the face of scientific
teaching. Whether or not the Church's stance is actively harmful is not at
issue here. What is at issue is that the Church takes the position that engaging
in the activity is harmful.
Isn't this an example of where faith conflicts with reason?
Nemesio
12 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseHealthy is something that is an improvement to existing health, not simply
For that matter one needs a proper definition of "healthy, natural and normal"...
Healthy - not directly detrimental to your health
Natural and Normal - a socially accepted norm
By this definition abortion would also qualify.
non-detrimental.
Natural normal, either.
Natural means a product of our biology rather than a socially developed thing
(i.e., artificial).
Normal can mean socially acceptable, and, in this case, I suppose this is what it
means.
Nemesio
12 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI was just stipulating some possible defintions... thanks for the correction.
Healthy is something that is an improvement to existing health, not simply
non-detrimental.
Natural normal, either.
Natural means a product of our biology rather than a socially developed thing
(i.e., artificial).
Normal can mean socially acceptable, and, in this case, I suppose this is what it
means.
Nemesio
An improvement to existing health - masturbation, you say? Is there anything essential one would be missing out on? From your link it seems like unless I'm suffering from some sexual deficiency a 5 minute jog around the block would give me the same health workout:
- "strengthen muscle tone in the pelvic and anal areas"
- "induce sleep"
- "reduce stress"
- "indirectly prevent disease and build up resistance to infections by increasing the flow of white blood cells and rejuvenating the circulation of hormones "
- "increase blood flow in the genital region"
- "stimulate endorphin production, allowing better oxygen metabolism and more efficient cell functioning throughout the body "
13 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I
You introduced the term 'Natural Moral Law.'
You define it!
Nemesio
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
"1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin ....."
"It (the natural moral law) expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.
1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Natural Moral Law is called "natural" because it refers to the nature of the human person. The original moral sense for our conduct is found in our nature itself.
"The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie."
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI'm sure I can dig up some scientific evidence that stealing is positive and upbuilding to your financial wellbeing. That does not detract from stealing being sin.
Er. That is not the Church's stance. The Church states that to engage in
masturbation is unnatural and sinful. This flies in the face of scientific
teaching. Whether or not the Church's stance is actively harmful is not at
issue here. What is at issue is that the Church takes the position that engaging
in the activity is harmful.
Isn't this an example of where faith conflicts with reason?
Nemesio
Does faith conflict with reason in this case?
P.S. I'm not sure which Church you are implying, the RCC?
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseGood question, one that might point you to where morals actually come from. From an view of the invidual stealing is a moral plus whereas since he's stealing from members of society from a societal view stealing is a moral minus. That is unless of course, it's wartime and then the society itself steals.
I'm sure I can dig up some scientific evidence that stealing is positive and upbuilding to your financial wellbeing. That does not detract from stealing being sin.
Does faith conflict with reason in this case?
P.S. I'm not sure which Church you are implying, the RCC?
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by HalitoseStealing is a sin because it is a violation of rights. I assume that
I'm sure I can dig up some scientific evidence that stealing is positive and upbuilding to your financial wellbeing. That does not detract from stealing being sin.
Does faith conflict with reason in this case?
P.S. I'm not sure which Church you are implying, the RCC?
we are taking as sacrosanct the notion that the recognition of
rights is a requirement for moral behavior.
Also, stealing, as a general practice is (socially) unhealthy
because you may just as easily be the victim as the perpetrator.
If we maintain a 'stealing is ok' mentality, there will be no sociatal
security in property, which is obviously unhealthy.
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
You know, I've figured out that this thread is a fraud.
Let's take the title:
'Faith can never conflict with reason.'
The term faith, in this context refers (as Ivanhoe said) to the
specific and particular religous perspective of the Roman
Catholic Church (as any Jew or Moslem will certainly discern from
the ensuing conversation).
So, let's rephrase: 'Roman Catholicism can never conflict with reason.'
Ok. But what is reasonable? That which conforms to 'Natural Moral
Law.' But who defines 'NML?' The Roman Catholic Church!
So, let's rephrase again:
'Roman Catholicism can never conflict with NML as defined by the Church.'
Well, DUH! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Nice tautology, Ivanhoe.
Nemesio
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioSo, let's rephrase: 'Roman Catholicism can never conflict with reason.'
You know, I've figured out that this thread is a fraud.
Let's take the title:
'Faith can never conflict with reason.'
The term faith, in this context refers (as Ivanhoe said) to the
specific and particular religous perspective of the Roman
Catholic Church (as any Jew or Moslem will certainly discern from
the ensuing conversation).
So ...[text shortened]... L as defined by the Church.'
Well, DUH! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Nice tautology, Ivanhoe.
Nemesio
Yep, that's what the Pope is trying to say (another version of "Truth cannot contradict truth" from Dei Filius, Vatican I).
Ok. But what is reasonable? That which conforms to 'Natural Moral
Law.' But who defines 'NML?' The Roman Catholic Church!
No - that's not what the Pope is trying to say. His point becomes much more clear when you read his encyclical on faith & reason (Fides et Ratio). In FR, the Pope (who is an accomplished philosopher in his own right) asserts that any philosophical system which is not self-destructive (e.g. skepticism) and which has a full metaphysical range (materialism, for instance, limits its metaphysics to the physical) will be consistent with the Catholic faith.
14 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "Nice tautology, Ivanhoe."
You know, I've figured out that this thread is a fraud.
Let's take the title:
'Faith can never conflict with reason.'
The term faith, in this context refers (as Ivanhoe said) to the
specific and particular religous perspective of the Roman
Catholic Church (as any Jew or Moslem will certainly discern from
the ensuing conversation).
So ...[text shortened]... L as defined by the Church.'
Well, DUH! 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Nice tautology, Ivanhoe.
Nemesio
The credit must be all yours since you constructed it.
Your cleverness has brought you two recs allready. I will add my own. That will make three.
The fact that you didn't read the article, otherwise you wouldn't spout the things you are claiming, doesn't matter in the given context.