[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now you’re just messing around. You have to be. Choices don’t occur in a vacuum. Again, you might as well have said, “Why can’t an atheist be a Catholic priest?! The church’s choice of requirements must yield to their choices. Or, force has been used against the atheist! But, of course, force won’t have been used against others, including the Church, if they surrender their choice of requirements.” That’s just garbage, and I suspect you know it. [/quote]
Nobody said that limiting choices is inherently bad, only that unnecessarily limiting choices which results in unhealthy outcomes is bad.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, concrete force, owning perhaps months out of a year of another man’s labor(i.e. a piece of his life span), is good force. A completely voluntary association is bad “force”…[/quote]
Where do you draw the line? Or are you arguing that there is no line (i.e., that all taxes should be abolished)?
There is more to life than unalloyed self-gratification or rank hedonism. Not everyone organizes their lives on the principles of self-indulgence as the ultimate end. That they choose not to is not “unhealthy” - it is an act of love for their Church and their “flock”.[/quote]
Newton was celibate. Tesla claimed his celibacy helped him focus. Mendel was, of course celibate as well.
It’s hard to see how someone, on a bodybuilding website, can’t see how the suppression of appetites in favor of mental devotion, rigor, and discipline is almost inherently virtuous.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
It’s hard to see how someone, on a bodybuilding website, can’t see how the suppression of appetites in favor of mental devotion, rigor, and discipline is almost inherently virtuous.[/quote]
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Newton was celibate. Tesla claimed his celibacy helped him focus. Mendel was, of course celibate as well.
It’s hard to see how someone, on a bodybuilding website, can’t see how the suppression of appetites in favor of mental devotion, rigor, and discipline is almost inherently virtuous.[/quote]
Voluntary celibacy is one thing; some people are asexual by choice or nature. I’m talking about priests who would happily choose a wife and children, and be enriched thereby, but are denied that opportunity by virtue of a stodgy, dysfunctional interpretation of their holy book.
It’s more than a little ironic that self-taunted defenders of the traditional family are so willing to advocate celibacy as a holy and desirable state.
Think of it in terms of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. You need a certain amount of material wealth in order to meet your basic safety/nutritional requirements, but you don’t strictly need more than that. You also need to have love and belongingness in your life. People should be able to meet all of these needs on at least a basic level, and forcing someone to surrender one in order to meet another is neither compassionate nor “Christian”.[/quote]
You’re babbling and threw in ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy’ to make it sound like what you said means something.
First, Maslow’s Hierarchy is theoretical, not law, and the very topic of discussion is the antithesis of the Hierarchy. People often and routinely sacrifice life and limb for God and Country (among other things), light themselves on fire for their beliefs, starve themselves, etc. It’s considered a sign of absolute devotion and/or singularity of purpose. Just like these scenarios the Church isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, the Church is asking for purity. If you’re devoting the whole of your being to a deity, what’s left to devote to a spouse or mate? Second, you clearly don’t understand Maslow. Need and belonging are at the higher (as in not basal) levels and (supposedly) go unattained/unfulfilled much more easily than the lower levels.
[quote]forlife wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Newton was celibate. Tesla claimed his celibacy helped him focus. Mendel was, of course celibate as well.
It’s hard to see how someone, on a bodybuilding website, can’t see how the suppression of appetites in favor of mental devotion, rigor, and discipline is almost inherently virtuous.
Voluntary celibacy is one thing; some people are asexual by choice or nature. I’m talking about priests who would happily choose a wife and children, and be enriched thereby, but are denied that opportunity by virtue of a stodgy, dysfunctional interpretation of their holy book.
It’s more than a little ironic that self-taunted defenders of the traditional family are so willing to advocate celibacy as a holy and desirable state.
[/quote]
About as ironic as a homosexual saying someone is celibate by choice or by nature.
I think it much more likely that the person is say, a repressed homosexual that turns to pedophilia rather than a repressed model of the family man. However, most probably just a deviant to begin with, that the authority and culture of the Church happens to attract.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, concrete force, owning perhaps months out of a year of another man’s labor(i.e. a piece of his life span), is good force. A completely voluntary association is bad “force”…
Where do you draw the line? Or are you arguing that there is no line (i.e., that all taxes should be abolished)?
[/quote]
Abolish all? Nope. But I’m not the one pretending outrage over an entirely voluntary association, while condoning the confiscation of other’s mens’ wages which actually does require force.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
You’re babbling and threw in ‘Maslow’s Hierarchy’ to make it sound like what you said means something.
First, Maslow’s Hierarchy is theoretical, not law, and the very topic of discussion is the antithesis of the Hierarchy. People often and routinely sacrifice life and limb for God and Country (among other things), light themselves on fire for their beliefs, starve themselves, etc. It’s considered a sign of absolute devotion and/or singularity of purpose. Just like these scenarios the Church isn’t forcing anyone to do anything, the Church is asking for purity. If you’re devoting the whole of your being to a deity, what’s left to devote to a spouse or mate? Second, you clearly don’t understand Maslow. Need and belonging are at the higher (as in not basal) levels and (supposedly) go unattained/unfulfilled much more easily than the lower levels.[/quote]
If you understood Maslow’s Hierarchy, you would realize that sacrificing a lower level need to meet a higher level need isn’t contradicted by the model. The point is that people have basic needs at each level, and it is both stupid and immoral to deny the basic need for love and belongingness, in the name of unfettered wealth. Reducing your wealth by a small percent, while still having your basic safety and survival needs met, is a small price to pay relative to not meeting your needs for love at all.
[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s more than a little ironic that self-taunted defenders of the traditional family are so willing to advocate celibacy as a holy and desirable state.
[/quote]
You should slow down before hitting submit. If one is celibate, one is not doing what outside the confines of marriage? It’s been entertaining, but I’m satisfied with what I’ve already posted.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Abolish all? Nope. But I’m not the one pretending outrage over an entirely voluntary association, while condoning the confiscation of other’s mens’ wages which actually does require force.[/quote]
Do you fundamentalists always think in such black and white terms? It’s not an all or nothing situation, where force is universally good or bad. Some level of force (i.e., taxes) is acceptable; but unnecessary force on a far more intimate level (i.e., prohibiting a good man from marrying or having children) is neither healthy nor desirable.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
You should slow down before hitting submit. If one is celibate, one is not doing what outside the confines of marriage? It’s been entertaining, but I’m satisfied with what I’ve already posted.[/quote]
If one is celibate, one is not having children, which you are constantly harping on as the purpose of society. Is reproduction now not such an important goal as you claimed earlier?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Abolish all? Nope. But I’m not the one pretending outrage over an entirely voluntary association, while condoning the confiscation of other’s mens’ wages which actually does require force.
Do you fundamentalists always think in such black and white terms? It’s not an all or nothing situation, where force is universally good or bad. Some level of force (i.e., taxes) is acceptable; but unnecessary force on a far more intimate level (i.e., prohibiting a good man from marrying or having children) is neither healthy nor desirable.[/quote]
Here’s one to cramp your brain. Let’s imagine a forlife world where Catholic priests can even be married bisexuals in polyamorous marriages. Let’s say this was a concession to your non catholic-cafeteria catholicism. But, it was done like the following:
“For now on, priests can screw and marry. We’ll provide a salary high enough to raise a family. Nor, will we move them around in service to the church so as not to cause undue hardship to the family. Instead, we’ll create a new office called the Criest. Criests are forewarned that this new office we require 8 years of study, a very meager salary, moving around at a moments notice, and celibacy. Speak out if you volunteer for candidancy for the Criesthood”
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
You should slow down before hitting submit. If one is celibate, one is not doing what outside the confines of marriage? It’s been entertaining, but I’m satisfied with what I’ve already posted.
If one is celibate, one is not having children, which you are constantly harping on as the purpose of society. Is reproduction now not such an important goal as you claimed earlier?[/quote]
I didn’t realize you were being serious. I don’t see any problem with your Priest/Criest distinction, as long as they are allowed to perform the same services. If Criests are given special privileges due to celibacy, that turns into another example of unnecessary force.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I didn’t realize you were being serious. I don’t see any problem with your Priest/Criest distinction, as long as they are allowed to perform the same services. If Criests are given special privileges due to celibacy, that turns into another example of unnecessary force.[/quote]
[quote]forlife wrote:
You mean by advocating taxation?
Are you arguing that all taxes should be abolished, or do you recognize that some degree of taxation (aka "force) is necessary?[/quote]
Some degree yes, that degree no.
Indirect taxes for example are much less restrictive than an income tax which is why the US had a system of tariffs in the beginning.
Plus, you advocate taxation for the sake of “compassionate” redistribution which lives off the notion that some people live to serve others which is a truly medieval concept.
Think about it, 200-300 years after the enlightenment we are back to square one. Back breaking taxes for the common people and the truly rich and the churches are exempt.
Voluntary celibacy is one thing; some people are asexual by choice or nature. I’m talking about priests who would happily choose a wife and children, and be enriched thereby, but are denied that opportunity by virtue of a stodgy, dysfunctional interpretation of their holy book.[/quote]
Clerical celibacy is a choice, and is voluntary celibacy - and it is a means to a spiritual end by those that choose it. Priests must make that sacrifice if they choose to be a priest.
They make the choice so that they can prioritize their service - their “family” is the congregation they serve, and true devotion to a family means you can only serve one master. With a traditional family, a priest could not have the devotion required for his Church - that is the way of the Catholic cleric.
And you aren’t qualified to judge Catholic interpretation of the holy book. Stop while you are ahead.
There is nothing ironic about it - Catholics don’t believe their priests can serve two masters and fulfill their duties. A Catholic priest’s “family” is his flock, as a matter of choice, and the sacrifice yields benefits. Their is no tension in recognizing this choice and advocating traditional family - thus, no irony.
You are just on yet another predictable hissy fit because some religion somewhere won’t let its members indulge in whatever they want to do without shame or condemnation.