zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:42 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 222 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:00 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Anarcho-Centrist Island
ObsequiousNewt wrote:
I love how the mods aren't breaking this up because it's too hilarious to let stop.

No they aren't because everything is working as expected. The job of the mods on the ZBB is primarily to ensure that the board is kept running and that things do not degenerate to the point that basic human decency is violated, which is good. I was on a tightly moderated board once, and it was awful.

pthagnar being farcical about Jews, in any event, is an everyday occurrence, as is Astraios being as gay and Jewish as he can in return; so there is nothing out of the ordinary here except for a significantly increased concentration of hilarity. Which is also good because given recent events (i.e. somebody's skirt being set on fire by a marvelous specimen of the scum of the earth, saizai being unable to restrain himself from using the tragedy to attempt and foster the tribal conlanger identity he has been trying to establish for years and the lamentable, though thankfully temporary, loss of patiku) we could all use some hilarity. Don't you think?

_________________
陳第 wrote:
蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。

R.Rusanov wrote:
seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg

Read all about my excellent conlangs
Basic Conlanging Advice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:13 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 2:49 am
Posts: 4700
Location: Bonn, Germany
ol bofosh wrote:
ObsequiousNewt wrote:
Also, how is marriage "eternal" when that state ceases once you (both) die? I was always under the impression that your marital status on earth didn't matter in heaven.

It's weird that. On one hand Jesus says "What God has united, let no man split" (and transcends earthly ties, i.e. survives in Heaven). Effectively the two souls become one, and I suppose in Heaven they are one.

Well, point seems to be that it doesn't, at least for Catholics (and AFAIK most Protestants as well) - if you look at the Catholic catechism I quoted above, marriage ends with the death of one partner. In heaven, like in the kingdom of god, there's no marriage and no need for marriage, as seemingly all of those who end up there are like sisters and brothers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:49 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Anarcho-Centrist Island
Remember, sex is sinful and its only purpose is to let the species continue. In heaven there is no sin, and thus no sex. Logical, innit?

_________________
陳第 wrote:
蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。

R.Rusanov wrote:
seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg

Read all about my excellent conlangs
Basic Conlanging Advice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:05 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 1077
Location: Wisconsin
Inversion wrote:
Remember, sex is sinful and its only purpose is to let the species continue. In heaven there is no sin, and thus no sex. Logical, innit?


That suuuuuuuuucks. I would expect heaven to have all the sex, even kinds the internet hasn't discovered yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:22 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:05 pm
Posts: 812
Location: /ˈaɪ̯əwʌ/
HandsomeRob wrote:
Inversion wrote:
Remember, sex is sinful and its only purpose is to let the species continue. In heaven there is no sin, and thus no sex. Logical, innit?


That suuuuuuuuucks. I would expect heaven to have all the sex, even kinds the internet hasn't discovered yet.

So, amend Rule 35 to "if said porn does not yet exist, heaven will make it"?

_________________


Ο ορανς τα ανα̨ριθομον ϝερρον εͱεν ανθροποτροφον.
Το̨ ανθροπς αυ̨τ εκψον επ αθο̨ οραναμο̨ϝον.
Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν. Θαιν.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:30 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16318
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Inversion wrote:
Remember, sex is sinful and its only purpose is to let the species continue. In heaven there is no sin, and thus no sex. Logical, innit?


But only relevant to your own misanthropic fantasy version of religion.

What the catechism actually says:
" Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others. Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity... The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity... Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion...The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude... Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure: The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment."

Catholicism doesn't teach that sex is sinful - and actually, continuing the species is far less of a factor in Catholic teaching than love. That's the real lynchpin of Catholic teachings on sex: the idea that sex exists to enable a closer and more loving union. Catholicism defines that sort of love as a giving of oneself to another without reservation, which is where the problems begin. The 'procreative' element of sex can largely be explained from this 'uniative' element: contraception is thought to be one (or both) partners holding back and including a "so long as it won't make me/her pregnant" clause. Adultery is likewise prohibited as a form of reservation: the adulterous partner can't share everything, if they're reserving a part of their life for someone else. [However, this would seem to run into problems with polyamory, so long as all the partners love each other unreservedly. They could insist, I suppose, that while two people were having sex, they were either excluding the third partner or else reserving them in their thoughts and not wholly giving themselves to the partner they were with, but aside from being unconvincing this also wouldn't work with actual simultaneous threesomes]

Fornication and masturbation are then ruled out as being contrary to dignity - basically, that these are misleading mockeries of the valuable thing, uniative sex.

[The stance on homosexuality is bollocks, I think. They give no good reason why two men are not the equivalent of a man and a woman who cannot have children with one another. So either it has to come down to some dodgy platonic argument about there being differences in form though not in instantiation, or else down to a dogmatic 'marriage is between a man and a woman' insistence. Neither is convincing. Plus, even if it's always wrong, that doesn't justify going on about it - cf masturbation. About masturbation the catechism admits: 'To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability'; it's unclear why similar habits and factors cannot reduce the culpability for gay sex to a minimum also]

They do teach that the pursuit of sexual pleasure for the sake of sexual pleasure ('lust') is wrong, but then that's just a reflection of their general teaching that pleasure is a consequence of doing good things, but not something to be sought for its own sake. I suppose an analogy would be giving your child a treat when they drink up their milk - fornicators and the like are in this theory the equivalent of children who pour their milk down the drain when the parent's back is turned, but then claim to have drunk it all and demand their money anyway. The Church also warns against allowing sexuality to overpower reason and damaging personal integrity, because the Church warns about anything overpowering reason and damaging personal integrity.



Incidentally, the uniative purpose of sex may also explain the stance on divorce. The giving of oneself to one's spouse is meant to be the giving of the whole of oneself, without temporal bounds or limitations, so divorce followed by remarriage would be a form of adultery. This could be taken to prohibit the remarriage of widow(er)s, but I guess the argument there is probably that such people have not held anything back, but have had something taken from them against their will, which is different.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 3:53 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 11760
Location: Santiago de Chile
The cartoonish "catholics hate sex lol medieval prunes" is not misanthropic, as in it doesn't stem from hatred of mankind or humanity.

Now, sure, Catholicism doesn't teach that sex between people who have already agreed to only ever have sex with each other unless one of the people in the marriage dies, and even then not for the sake of pleasure itself but only if done for the sake of strengthening that eternal commitment done to someone else without which one should never have sex at all, and even then, only if no form of contraception is used. and even then, only if said sex is, in the roman catholic terms 'open to life'*, that is to say, sex of the kind that, in itself, could get a female pregnant is sinful. That is to say, all sex is sinful except this tiny subset of possible sex, namely penis-in-vagina sex performed between a man and a woman married under the particular church of Catholicism with the particular intention of giving themselves fully to each other and strengthening their marriage vows strictly in ways consistent with -that is to say that in themselves could result in- the particular result of pregnancy. Its not misanthropy that the popular opinion of people about catholic and christian belief is that sex is sinful: If I told you that to be acceptable to my belief system meat had to fulfill these very stringent requirements in order to not be sinful, like be the meat of a dove that was killed on february the 28th of a year in which the person who slaughtered the dove had given birth to twins, and that else meat is an abomination against the lord or something, is it dumb of ill-intentioned of you to get the feeling that "hell, this guy really hates meat" ?

That also neatly explains why homosexual sex is sinful in catholicism, because it is *not* open to life and therefore not natural sex at all but mere lustful fornication. I mean hell, all catholic sources I can find deem even manual and oral sex to be 'intrinsically disorderly' or 'unnatural' sexual acts. So you could narrow it down even more to The catholic church does not deem sex to be sinful, it only deems alll sex to be sinful except for sex of the penis-in-vagina variety done within a marriage with internal eyaculation for the purpose of uniting the wife and husband spiritually. It may be imprecise, but surely its not misanthropic to reduce all that to just "catholicism teaches sex is sinful", ne ?

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:08 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 11760
Location: Santiago de Chile
As for in heaven there being no sin and thus no sex, well, since technically not all sex is sinful there being no celestial sin would suggest that married people *can* bone in heaven. Remember that catholicism teaches the resurrection of the flesh. I mean, this resurrection of the flesh will turn the flesh into magical flesh that is invulnerable, unrestrained by matter, infinitely fast and infinitely beautiful but it'll still *be* flesh -in the sense that wine sometimes *is* blood, I presume? I don't even know, like, what does it mean for something to be flesh if it is unrestrained by matter? never mind, the point is that the resurrected people will have magical bodies which will be, presumably, able to engage in sex with each other of the variety that the Lord approves of so... yeah, there ought to be *some* sex in heaven.... except that in heaven and after the resurrection of the body there doesn't seem like there'll be any more breeding, so... any act performed by the dead is such that it isn't open to life... so maybe there won't be any sex in heaven?

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:17 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 3:33 pm
Posts: 388
Marriage ends at death, so there are no married people in heaven. Yes? No?

_________________
The Anthologica Universe Atlas.
The Memory of the City.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:20 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: Hole of Aspiration
Rhetorica wrote:
Marriage ends at death, so there are no married people in heaven. Yes? No?
<ian paisley voice>READ YOOUR BEIBLE</ian paisley voice>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:27 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Brittania
I don't know about Catholicism, but in the Bible, Jesus very clearly states that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Simple as that.

Jesus never condemns sex, but he does condemn 'sexual immorality'. I can't remember if the Bible itself does explain that in more depth. Homosexuality is also condemned, though it is acknowledged that it is a perfectly natural phenomenon resulting from sin.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:36 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16318
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Torco wrote:
The cartoonish "catholics hate sex lol medieval prunes" is not misanthropic, as in it doesn't stem from hatred of mankind or humanity.

Now, sure, Catholicism doesn't teach that sex between people who have already agreed to only ever have sex with each other unless one of the people in the marriage dies, and even then not for the sake of pleasure itself but only if done for the sake of strengthening that eternal commitment done to someone else without which one should never have sex at all, and even then, only if no form of contraception is used. and even then, only if said sex is, in the roman catholic terms 'open to life'*, that is to say, sex of the kind that, in itself, could get a female pregnant is sinful. That is to say, all sex is sinful except this tiny subset of possible sex, namely penis-in-vagina sex performed between a man and a woman married under the particular church of Catholicism with the particular intention of giving themselves fully to each other and strengthening their marriage vows strictly in ways consistent with -that is to say that in themselves could result in- the particular result of pregnancy. Its not misanthropy that the popular opinion of people about catholic and christian belief is that sex is sinful: If I told you that to be acceptable to my belief system meat had to fulfill these very stringent requirements in order to not be sinful, like be the meat of a dove that was killed on february the 28th of a year in which the person who slaughtered the dove had given birth to twins, and that else meat is an abomination against the lord or something, is it dumb of ill-intentioned of you to get the feeling that "hell, this guy really hates meat" ?

That also neatly explains why homosexual sex is sinful in catholicism, because it is *not* open to life and therefore not natural sex at all but mere lustful fornication. I mean hell, all catholic sources I can find deem even manual and oral sex to be 'intrinsically disorderly' or 'unnatural' sexual acts. So you could narrow it down even more to The catholic church does not deem sex to be sinful, it only deems alll sex to be sinful except for sex of the penis-in-vagina variety done within a marriage with internal eyaculation for the purpose of uniting the wife and husband spiritually. It may be imprecise, but surely its not misanthropic to reduce all that to just "catholicism teaches sex is sinful", ne ?


It's specifically misanthropic in Hollow's case, I believe. Because I think he's saying it to be derogatory to Catholics, as just one part of his general campaign to be derogatory toward all people. He hates everybody, so he thinks everybody is stupid, so he makes up stupid stuff for other people to have said.

Regarding the details here, I think you're being a bit sophistical. If I believe a) that it's wrong to cook meals on any day other than friday, and b) cooking meat is wonderful, is it really true that I believe that cooking meat is wrong? I don't think so. And in your example: yes, it would be dumb of me to think that you hated meat, if you told me repeatedly how wonderful meat was, how it was your favourite food, how, although you thought it was forbidden in most circumstances, it was still the most constant temptation you had, and how you thought that going without meat was one of the greatest sacrifices possible in life. [I also wouldn't agree that the sex they like was limited to a 'tiny subset' of sex - I'd say it was limited to 'prototypical forms of sex'. Man, woman, penis, vagina, when a mummy rabbit and a daddy rabbit love each other VERY much, etc etc. It's like saying that a company hates underpants because its dress codes limit the wearing of underpants only to a tiny, tiny subset of possible underpants roles. (Not that I personally think there's anything wrong with other forms of sex, but then I don't think there's anything morally wrong in wearing underpants on your head (in fact, if you do and have the guts to do it, more power to you!)). Or that democrats hate elections, because they insist on them being free and fair and secret and so forth, which ultimately is a tiny subset of all the things that could be called 'elections'. Measuring approved things as a subset of all possible things isn't particularly edifying - for one thing, both sets are infinite in size, for another both sets are indefinite in size (as there is no objective way to distinguish and count cases), and for a third thing it's far from clear why it matters exactly.

Regarding the very small details: on oral (etc) sex, I believe the teaching is that there's nothing wrong with it for pleasure as part of sex, it's using oral stimulation to avoid what they consider 'real' sex that they have a problem with. I think there may also be some grey areas as to whether vaginal penetration is actually required, so long as there's some viable way for the semen to enter it?



Anyway, it's worth mentioning one clear rebuttal of the "catholics say sex is sinful but is justified to enable reproduction" line, which is that if it were true Catholics should love the idea of artificial insemination, in vitro, and so forth. Whereas in fact the catechism says that all that is evil, precisely because it devalues, and lets people avoid, fucking.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:26 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:45 am
Posts: 188
Location: Australia
KathAveara wrote:
Jesus never condemns sex, but he does condemn 'sexual immorality'. I can't remember if the Bible itself does explain that in more depth. Homosexuality is also condemned, though it is acknowledged that it is a perfectly natural phenomenon resulting from sin.

Jesus does indeed go into more depth during the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5: "You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

From what I understand though through the OT, sexual immorality is in a big way both symbolic and derived of humanity's detachment from God and seeking after other gods, whether they be personal or material. In the Ten Commandments, for example, lust of a neighbour's wife is given as an example of coveting, ie. seeking after possessions. A big symbol that often crops up within the Prophetic books is marriage, precisely because it mirrors God's own relationship with Israel in both good and bad, in both God's love and justice and his people's idolatry and immorality. Ezekiel 16 is probs one of the best examples describing this in the OT, if not just for sheer imagery.

Of course, the NT goes one big step further in that Jesus is shown as the one who renews and cleanses Israel through his crucifixion and then by his resurrection. The apostle Paul points back to this in Ephesians 5 when he is describing how to act within marriage to his readers: "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her to make her holy, cleansing her with the washing of water by the word. He did this to present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or anything like that, but holy and blameless." In Revelation, there is even the famous scene where the New Jerusalem comes down from heaven as a bride for the Christ.

_________________
Native: English || Pretty decent: Ancient Greek || Alright: Ancient Hebrew || Eh: Welsh || Basic: Mandarin Chinese || Very basic: French, Latin, Gamilaraay, Syriac, Nisuese, Old Apsiska
Conlangs: Pofp'ash, Nisuese, Apsiska


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:23 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 5:00 pm
Posts: 4214
Location: Braunschweig, Germany
KathAveara wrote:
I don't know about Catholicism, but in the Bible, Jesus very clearly states that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Simple as that.


The only religion I know of which knows the concept of marriage beyond death is Mormonism, where married couples can be "married for eternity" at a temple. This is a separate ceremony from an ordinary wedding ceremony, which results only in a marriage "till death do us part".

_________________
...brought to you by the Weeping Elf
Tha cvastam émi cvastam santham amal phelsa. -- Friedrich Schiller
ESTAR-3SG:P human-OBJ only human-OBJ true-OBJ REL-LOC play-3SG:A


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:41 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Anarcho-Centrist Island
Salmoneus wrote:
It's specifically misanthropic in Hollow's case, I believe.

Yes.
Quote:
Because I think he's saying it to be derogatory to Catholics, as just one part of his general campaign to be derogatory toward all people.
Not quite.
Quote:
He hates everybody, so he thinks everybody is stupid
Not quite either, I just assume so until proven otherwise.
Quote:
so he makes up stupid stuff for other people to have said.
No.

If you will allow me to expound: as you probably know, the notion that
Torco wrote:
catholics hate sex lol medieval prunes
is quite widespread among non-catholics, especially the more odious part of the new atheist crowd (you know, the kind that are enlightened by their own intelligence ). Furthermore, the same sort of people also like to paint all religion as some sort of sadomasochistic moloch bent on fooling the gullible into abandoning all joy in life through a combination of the promise of some arbitrary reward and/or threat of eternal torment, peer pressure, indoctrination and tribalism, which is actually an idea I am quite fond of and at whose nonexistence I am at times even disappointed (but of course it couldn't exist, since you can chase out nature but it will keep crawling back etc).

The part of the sex-allergic catholic thus offers threefold satisfaction: you get to act repressive and make fun of two rather substantial groups of people at the same time. And you don't even have to make up any of the stupid stuff yourself.

_________________
陳第 wrote:
蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。

R.Rusanov wrote:
seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg

Read all about my excellent conlangs
Basic Conlanging Advice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:58 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 11760
Location: Santiago de Chile
I don't think, Sal, that he has a campaign against all people: just against all people he adolescently percieves as "them stupid humans" or something like that. What is your reason for believing he hates everybody? I don't think he does, he's just a teenager <i seem to remember?>. Also sex is only for procreation is not unheard of, and if all you ever saw is catholics going "sex is sinful" and some random lady going "sex that is not for procreation is evil" its wrong, but understandable, to reach the conclusion that these weird people believe sex is evil and only permissible for procreation... I mean, from a pagan's perspective, it'd be one of the easy to understand things catholics putatively believe in, wouldn't it ? <even if they don't, you get my drift>
EDIT: I'm not sure Inversion's recent posting supports or breaks the above paragraph xD

However not all restrictions are equal, catholic restrictions instrumentalize sex and reduce it to a means, almost an evil thing which can only be used for good in this one specific instance but that is, in all other respects, sinful. Its easy to argue <and you've done, I think> that lust in catholicism is no different than gluttony: eating is for nurturing the body and keeping it healthy just like sex is for nurturing and uniting married couples, so the principle of sin as perverting the purpose of something in order to derive pleasure from it would seem to indicate sex is not treated with especial aversion. Except that's not really the case... some gluttony is all fine and dandy for catholicism, for catholics and for the catholic church: like, giving a kid some candy or eating a nice burger if you're not hungry, or even dissociating the nurturing function of food while still enjoying its unitive function on the dinner table... unless it becomes so overpowering for the glutton that they have *actual* consequences of their sin <become very fat or morally corrupt or unable to fullfill their duties or whatever as a result of their gluttony> the church looks at this perversion of "food is for nurture" with amused indulgence. Furthermore there is metonymy here: when noncatholics say that catholics <or christians, as it were, since this is not province of the vatican> hate sex, they actually mean they hate sexual *pleasure*, since that is the most salient aspect of sexuality. We hedonists imagine sexuality as something which feels good, brings people together, makes you grow as a person, and is great enough to be pursued for its own sake. Catholicism is explicitly against sexual pleasure is my main point here, I suppose, viewing it not as something which can enrich people's lives, but as an evil temptation: the only sexual pleasure you're ever allowed to feel within the catholic ethics is sexual pleasure which you *happen* to feel, perhaps by accident, while engaged in penis-in-vagina sex with a person who you previously decided would be the only woman or man you would ever have sex with that is of the kind that could, under typical circumstances, get a woman pregnant: and even then only if you're not actually trying to feel it -which is not the same thing as trying not to feel it but comes pretty damned close!- since pursuit of sexual pleasure for itself is sinful. Even having sex with your wife in order to make her relax and sleep better is a sin, i mean come ooooon! you can't know *that* and tell me that catholicism is all sex-positive and that it deems sex as something wonderful and blablabla.

tldr: catholicism is against sexual pleasure and this is what people mean when they say its against sex.

As for the really tiny details, I do believe you're wrong and that Roman Catholic doctrine deems oral sex, masturbation and so on and so forth as inherently unnatural and immoral...officially, at least, since I know of a few liberation theology-influenced priests here that posit that "anything done within holy matrimony is fine and dandy because holy matrimony itself sanctifies all the sex that happens within it" or some similar heresies like that polish friar wrote once... I'm not sure the church has an expresss official position on anal and manual sex, but catechism teaches a few things: contrary to your prior post's theses that for catholicism sex is either unitive or sin because its *meant* <presumably by the Lord> to be unitive and thus it not being unitive is inherently disorderly and evil and whatnot, unitiveness is hardly the only criterion for sex to be good in catholicism: there's also reproduction. sex is meant to be both unitive and reproductive, and thus sex that isn't is sinful. "the creator himself established that in the generative function there should be pleasure" the cathecism, 2331 and on, claims with truly enthusiastic insistence. thus:

a) lust is the desire for sexual pleasure, apart from its reproductive and unitive functions: while masturbation with a partner *might* get protection under the unitive thing it isn't open to life, it is sex separated from its reproductive purpose, it doesn't constitute a "gift of all of oneself" as it were, since the person recieving it <catholicism's sex-as-giving-oneself has always struck me as repugnant, but then again it would, wouldn't it?> does not recieve all of the person's giving it self <that is, whatever she recieves, she doesn't recieve his fecundity for new life or something>.
b) The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the simultaneous obligation of fidelity and fecundity; this simultaneity can't be messed with: sex for only one of the two valid reaons is still sinful. [which is why homosexual marriage, even chaste homosexual marriage, is nonsense in catholicism: its not even marriage at all, its just a couple of gays lusting after each other]. Even moreso
c) Husband and wife shouldn't have sex with each other except for when the reproductive result of that sex is responsible, that is to say that if they are not in a condition to have a child they should not bone at all. So not even pulling out of your wife is acceptable.

Now, I agree that

Quote:
in your example: yes, it would be dumb of me to think that you hated meat, if you told me repeatedly how wonderful meat was, how it was your favourite food, how, although you thought it was forbidden in most circumstances, it was still the most constant temptation you had, and how you thought that going without meat was one of the greatest sacrifices possible in life

You're right, catholics don't hate sex, how could they, they're humans. However,

KathAveara wrote:
I don't know about Catholicism, but in the Bible, Jesus very clearly states that there is no marriage after the resurrection. Simple as that.
Jesus never condemns sex, but he does condemn 'sexual immorality'. I can't remember if the Bible itself does explain that in more depth. Homosexuality is also condemned, though it is acknowledged that it is a perfectly natural phenomenon resulting from sin.

We're talking about a cultural artifact called catholicism. You could broaden it to christianity and it would be all well and good... but when you start discussing theology as a matter of fact, and even worse a simple one at that, just "go search the bible for what jesus said and you'll find the One True Christian Answertm you're no longer discussing this particular, and rather interesting, cultural artifact -a religion, a family of religions, or religion itself, or anything- but, rather, you're preaching some sort of protestantism. I'd like to politely point out this is not a fun, interesting, engaging, or particularly enlightened thing for you to do. If you're still interested in looking at this as cultural artifact, and not as "what is the actual word of jesus" -excuse my being crass here- I *think* I remember <perhaps Sal knows more about catholciism here> that catholicism taught death ends marriage, whereas orthodox and eastern catholicism <like the armenian church and so on> teaches that it doesn't. the whole "till death do us part" thinamajig in american protestantism suggests this is the majority view as well. If what I remember is right there is no sex in the catholic heaven, but there *may* be some in orthodox heaven.

EDIT: this post has sat on my computer's RAM for like a week and its starting to smell.

_________________
Articles on Suenu - Amphitrite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:17 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16318
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Too much to go through it all. So just one point:


Torco wrote:
Furthermore there is metonymy here: when noncatholics say that catholics <or christians, as it were, since this is not province of the vatican> hate sex, they actually mean they hate sexual *pleasure*, since that is the most salient aspect of sexuality. We hedonists imagine sexuality as something which feels good, brings people together, makes you grow as a person, and is great enough to be pursued for its own sake. Catholicism is explicitly against sexual pleasure is my main point here, I suppose, viewing it not as something which can enrich people's lives, but as an evil temptation

...no. Catholicism is explicitly NOT against sexual pleasure. They do view it as something that can enrich people's lives, and they don't view it as an evil temptation.
It CAN tempt people, sure, but that doesn't make it an evil temptation. Almost anything CAN tempt people, even good things. Remember that Catholic morality (other than in god-stuff) is founded on moderation and the mean. So, for instance, money is regarded as a temptation, but it's not inherently evil - rather, both those who pursue it immoderately (misers) and those who avoid it immoderately (spendthrifts) are considered to be in error. Likewise, not only is sex, and sexual pleasure, not considered an evil, but an aversion to sex (and sexual pleasure) is considered an error alongside an obsession with it. [Yes, some people pursue celibacy, but the whole point of celibacy is that it's only virtuous if the celibate person does desire sex in the normal way]. Catholicism's all in favour of having fun - it's not the sex they find a problem, it's the context of the sex. Are you confusing them with protestants?

Quote:
and even then only if you're not actually trying to feel it

What?
Quote:
Even having sex with your wife in order to make her relax and sleep better is a sin, i mean come ooooon!

What?
Catholics don't believe that having children has to be the intention of each act of copulation. They just believe that intentionally seeking to avoid children (eg, for men, by the cunning trick of having your partner have testicles and not a womb) is bad. Basically, wanting pleasure is a perfectly valid reason for doing things, but not if it's the only reason.
Quote:

As for the really tiny details, I do believe you're wrong and that Roman Catholic doctrine deems oral sex, masturbation and so on and so forth as inherently unnatural and immoral... I'm not sure the church has an expresss official position on anal and manual sex

If we're really going to go into technicalities, it depends what you mean by 'sex'. It's pretty simple really: sexual 'acts' that are essentially closed to procreation aren't allowed, those that aren't are. But 'act' here doesn't mean an action, it means the entire event as a coherent entity. Oral (etc) stimulation is considered OK, so long as the intent is for the man to then ejaculate inside the woman's vagina. Putting it another way: other sexual practices are fine as ways to improve sex and make it more pleasurable, they're just not permissable as replacements for sex. [NB current theory is a bit lopsided, since it's considered OK for women to orgasm from non-penetrative sex, just not men. I think opinion may be divided as to whether this is OK only after the man has climaxed or whether it's ok before as well. The key, though, is that in every sexual encounter there must be an instance of a man ejaculating into his wife's vagina]

Quote:
but catechism teaches a few things: contrary to your prior post's theses that for catholicism sex is either unitive or sin because its *meant* <presumably by the Lord> to be unitive and thus it not being unitive is inherently disorderly and evil and whatnot, unitiveness is hardly the only criterion for sex to be good in catholicism: there's also reproduction. sex is meant to be both unitive and reproductive, and thus sex that isn't is sinful. "the creator himself established that in the generative function there should be pleasure" the cathecism, 2331 and on, claims with truly enthusiastic insistence.

You'll note however that the catechism stresses the unity and inseparability of these two functions. And indeed the reproductive function can largely be explained from the unitive function, although the reproductive function in its own right helps explain why marriage is good in the first place.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:33 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Brittania
Torco, you're going to have to explain why you can't look in the Bible to add to the discussion of one particular branch of Christianity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:27 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Anarcho-Centrist Island
Much the same reason why you cannot look into the Qur'an to add to a discussion about a particular branch of Islam.

_________________
陳第 wrote:
蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。

R.Rusanov wrote:
seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg

Read all about my excellent conlangs
Basic Conlanging Advice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:12 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 am
Posts: 2904
Location: Brittania
But why?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:41 am 
Lebom
Lebom
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 11:35 pm
Posts: 85
Location: The unfathomable depths of the Internet.
I would like to know how a census thread turned into talk of religion and sex.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:59 am 
Šriftom
Šriftom
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 12:45 pm
Posts: 9542
Location: Hole of Aspiration
it asks you about those right there in the OP. not even off-topic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:07 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 12:23 pm
Posts: 9623
Location: I am a prisoner in my own mind.
Genome wrote:
I would like to know how a census thread turned into talk of religion and sex.

Thread drift isn't a bug. It's a feature.

_________________
Image Image
Common Zein Scratchpad & other Stuffs! OMG AN ACTUAL CONPOST WTFBBQ

Formerly known as Drydic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:09 pm 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:40 pm
Posts: 1682
Location: Anarcho-Centrist Island
we can fix this by asking people impossibly obnoxious questions about religion and sex, because you know, for science

for instance, have you ever gotten a nun (or a priest) to give you head, and if not, how do you explain your abject failure to be cool????

_________________
陳第 wrote:
蓋時有古今,地有南北;字有更革,音有轉移,亦勢所必至。

R.Rusanov wrote:
seks istiyorum
sex want-PRS-1sg

Read all about my excellent conlangs
Basic Conlanging Advice


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ZBB Census 2013
PostPosted: Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:38 pm 
Visanom
Visanom
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2004 4:27 pm
Posts: 6129
Location: Catalonia
Genome wrote:
I would like to know how a census thread turned into talk of religion and sex.

Threaddrift is a tradition. It's so common, in fact, that we don't have a Threaddrift Day. BTW, wait for drifttalks about Jews, Muslims, racism issues or terrorism: they're as funnier as the sex and religion ones; but the best ones, in my opiniom, are when we review past historical events and personalities.

_________________
Un llapis mai dibuixa sense una mà.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 222 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group