Aspects of Sexuality and opposing World Views (18 and older)

[Teallaura]

I struggled a lot of with this as a Christian, mostly because there was no obvious biblical mandate against masturbation and simple because every natural inclination I had told me it wasn't anything other than a simple natural urge. Why is so much energy put into barring people from doing this? Are there any sound good reasons for doing so, and that's what I wanted to know.

If the assumption is true, probably none that would satisfy you (at least not at present). If the assumption is false, yes. Energy levels are dependent on the strength of conviction that the practice is harmful.

I hear occasionally about 'natural law' arguments. They seem to follow the same weird story: The sexual organs are made for the act of sex between a man and a woman. The act of sex is a great good in a marriage. Masturbation isn't an act of sex between two married people. Therefore masturbation is wrong. There seems to me to be a huge and obvious gap between the two last sentences. This could simple be my ignorance.

Eh, I've seen it constructed similarly, but that's not the best natural law argument I can think of.

I also never gotten a reality check on how many Christian believe that masturbation really is wrong. How wrong? Grave ill, or peccadillo?

I don't really see the point to this. Many non-Christians believe the act is unhealthy and there are Christians who do not object to it - seems to me the truth isn't going to lie in how many believe something but how good their argument is.

Why don't the natural law arguers consider that masturbation might be a natural response? If it could be shown that it increased fertility, it seems that this alone would show that it had a healthy place since it kept the body in a better condition for the act of sex.

And if it could be shown to decrease fertility - which it arguably does - this objection is destroyed. If you want to counter natural law you need more than speculation.

Even that aside, it seems just a healthy thing mentally. What's harmed or destroyed?

Many regard it as unhealthy - speculation again. What is harmed? It can - and has - destroyed relationships. It can - and has - become so addictive that the person chooses the dead end of a 'relationship' with only oneself over healthier, mutual relationships.

Is it always so destructive? Maybe not - not all drug users become addicts but that's a pretty weak argument for shooting up heroine and for this.

And I'm not getting at vague allusions to "Your spiritual relationship with God", that would only be the case if it was in fact a sin but simple saying that begs the question, similarly with the argument that it shows weakness of character.

Your presumption here is false. It's sufficient that the person believes the act sinful (see Paul) or that the act becomes obsessive - like any other relationship, our relationship with God suffers when we allow ourselves to become obsessed with anything (moderation ain't just for trolls!).

It would be a violation of temperance only if it was something that came in the way of you doing something else that was a greater good, and there's plenty of things that you can do that are not a sin and of themselves, or even good, which would violate a virtue of temperance.

Again, false but in the ball park. It doesn't have to interfere with a good action - it's sufficient that it interfere with how well you live your life.

Its something I've had many frustrated attempts at understanding. I've failed to see why any Christian should limit themselves like this, and without good reasons for supposing that its an ill I don't see why people should insist that it is an ill. It seems arbitrary, and an old mistake that's being propagated needlessly.

Speculative and false. It clearly isn't arbitrary since, despite your rejection, people do voice valid objections to the practice.

It seems to me you are arguing that something must necessarily be physically harmful in order to be harmful - something I do not believe you ordinarily accept as true. The reasons may not be sufficient to you - which is perfectly valid - but they are to others regardless of how well you understand or accept them.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, science does not tell us what is moral or immoral. And why did you bring up the universal thing if you now agree that universality does not tell us if a behavior is moral or immoral?

Your repeating yourself and not reading my posts. The concept of universality and science gives us a foundation for understanding the nature of being human and the context of morality and ethics in human behavior.

First, God's Law determines the standards of human behavior, not human morals and and ethics which also reflect the nature of being human, and when humans place their belief in God's Law, morals and ethics becom more in tune with the will of God. At present the Baha'i Law is the greatest standard for things like women's role in society, science, slavery and indentured servitude, and other moral and ethical issues.

What on going problem? For instance both our faiths teach that homosexuality is wrong. So what is your point?

I already explained much of the problem, but I think I can ad more. Science can provide a foundation for understanding what is the nature of being human. Issues like Homosexuality and masturbation can be understood better to apply moral and ethical standards to human society. At present most of Christianity and Islam have chosen to ignore science when addressing these issues.

The belief in free will where most traditional Christians and Muslims believe ALL people can simply live a heterosexual life style and not masturbate if they really want to is an idealistic illusion of ancient world views.

[Seasanctuary]

Is natural law anything other than a PR term to provide ad-hoc justifications for a few Catholic doctrines?

Rhetorical question.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put a sleep mask on so I can nap better during the day. I may be sinfully inhibiting the natural function of my eyes, but I get grumpy if I don't nap comfortably.

[seer]

Your repeating yourself and not reading my posts. The concept of universality and science gives us a foundation for understanding the nature of being human and the context of morality and ethics in human behavior.

You are not making sense Shuny. Science call tell us that human being engage in specific behaviors - of course we don't need science to tell us these things. But it doesn't tell us what is moral/immoral.

First, God's Law determines the standards of human behavior, not human morals and and ethics which also reflect the nature of being human, and when humans place their belief in God's Law, morals and ethics become more in tune with the will of God.

Ok, I guess...

I already explained much of the problem, but I think I can ad more. Science can provide a foundation for understanding what is the nature of being human. Issues like Homosexuality and masturbation can be understood better to apply moral and ethical standards to human society. At present most of Christianity and Islam have chosen to ignore science when addressing these issues.

I have no idea what this means - both you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - how does science address or change that fact?

[Thersites]

Is natural law anything other than a PR term to provide ad-hoc justifications for a few Catholic doctrines?

Rhetorical question.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put a sleep mask on so I can nap better during the day. I may be sinfully inhibiting the natural function of my eyes, but I get grumpy if I don't nap comfortably.

Does falling asleep have an essential unitive element which, when habitually ignored or abused, leads to a diminished capacity to engage in that relational dimension of the act?

Didn't think so.

[shunyadragon]

You are not making sense Shuny. Science call tell us that human being engage in specific behaviors - of course we don't need science to tell us these things. But it doesn't tell us what is moral/immoral.

Yournot reading my posts, nor making sense. I never said nor even intimated that science can tell us what is moral nor immoral.Science help us understand the foundation and nature of morals and ethics throughout human history. Neither does God tell us what is moral nor immoral. God reveals God's Laws.

I have no idea what this means - both you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - how does science address or change that fact?

You do not understand it, because you apparently are responding from a perspective of a simplistic ancient view that tends to ignore science in its role of understanding human nature and behavior. I said before your simplistic view of right and wrong in terms of the nature of human morals and ethics is not realistic.

[Seasanctuary]

Does falling asleep have an essential unitive element which, when habitually ignored or abused, leads to a diminished capacity to engage in that relational dimension of the act?

That's a good example of how natural law stuff is just an ad hoc rephrasing of Catholic doctrine.

1. Take a doctrine.
2. Use a thesaurus.
3. Say "natural" a lot.
4. A natural law discovery!

P.S. — Ayn Rand did a similar trick with the word "objective."

[seer]

Yournot reading my posts, nor making sense. I never said nor even intimated that science can tell us what is moral nor immoral.Science help us understand the foundation and nature of morals and ethics throughout human history. Neither does God tell us what is moral nor immoral. God reveals God's Laws.

No Shuny, you are not making sense. What does science tell us about morals and ethics and we did not already know from history?

You do not understand it, because you apparently are responding from a perspective of a simplistic ancient view that tends to ignore science in its role of understanding human nature and behavior. I said before your simplistic view of right and wrong in terms of the nature of human morals and ethics is not realistic.

Shuny, you again avoided the question - we both believe that homosexual behavior is wrong - HOW DOES SCIENCE CHANGE THAT FACT?

[Thersites]

I think my perspective on this issue is more about theology than natural law. That having been said...

That's a good example of how natural law stuff is just an ad hoc rephrasing of Catholic doctrine.

1. Take a doctrine.
2. Use a thesaurus.
3. Say "natural" a lot.
4. A natural law discovery!

P.S. — Ayn Rand did a similar trick with the word "objective."

Thanks for paying attention to what I've said. It really is encouraging to see that sort of attention to detail on the Internet. It seems to getting rarer and rarer these days.

[Seasanctuary]

I think my perspective on this issue is more about theology than natural law.

Yes, I missed this.

[yxboom]

Yes, I missed this.

now kiss and make up.

[Teallaura]

now kiss and make up.

I'm pretty sure that's a completely different thread - and gross.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, you are not making sense. What does science tell us about morals and ethics and we did not already know from history?


Shuny, you again avoided the question - we both believe that homosexual behavior is wrong - HOW DOES SCIENCE CHANGE THAT FACT?

Avoided nothing, please read my posts and respond.

[Leonhard]

I use my iphone to tether my laptop as a means of an internet connection. My iphone is having its yearly fixup, and I've just been told that its so broken that it needs to be sent to the manufacturer (Foxconn in China ) for reperations. I'm in McDonalds right now so I can make a response so that it wouldn't seem like I've been evading the discussion.

I don't know when I'll be able to respond again, when I'm done making these posts.

Because sexuality is meant to reflect or parallel the human relationship with God, any expression of sexuality that is not relational (or, in theological terms, "unitive") should be regarded as a misuse of sexuality. If that misuse of sexuality is habitual, then that habit could conceivably form an obstacle to the proper expression of sexuality.

I think you'll have to unpack the answer, if you feel you can do that. Its cool if you're not sufficiently submerged in the Catholic theology of sex to be able to answer these questions, it'd be unfair of me to expect you to roll out a full theology of sex in a short the span of a small internet discussion. I think there's room enough that I can at least hear where you're coming from, and I can voice some of the problems I have.

How do we know that all there is of sexuality is to for it to be 'reflect and parallel the relationship with God'? And that this can exclusively be fulfilled in relationship between a man and a woman? The only parallel I can see is between Christ and the Church. It seems that it could sexuality could be both used as some that parallels the relationship between a human and God, but also in other ways. Perhaps a person can reflect on how marvelous the universe is they live in, and be thankful of God for the joys of life. You don't have to be married to be a full human. In the SB I used the example of the mouth and the uses it has, communication, consumption and respiration. I used this as a device to try to understand how a 'natural law' arguer would approach a topic like this. Trying to get into the those shoes I tried to argue that the mouths purpose was those three, and using the mouth for any other purpose would be a violation of those purposes. I.e blowing up balloons would be a sin from this perspective. You argued then sex was more important than. However while this is true, its special pleading without further argument. Sex being more or less important doesn't change the reasoning I sketched, and you never attacked it (or I never gave you an opportunity to do this in the SB, if I didn't I'm sorry).

Hope this is better.

Is that just repeating what I'd already said, or is there actually some new fodder in there?

I don't think I gave a fair shake at an answer in the SB, I wasn't being fair to you but I'll try to be that here, its easier when I have time to think about what I'm writing.

[Leonhard]

Avoided nothing, please read my posts and respond.

Why would trawling through your posts for sense help?