dairygirl4u2c Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=32847"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=32847[/url] I can see that it's different in that sex when it's in a loving context is strong and to defile that is wrong. Of course, we differ on what it means to defile that but. And food is not so much tied to the love that is God. I seriously do appreciate the Catholic Church's teaching on sex and such. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Candy with no food or calories? Generally, you try to use analogies which reflect reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
return2truth Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 (edited) The only thing that the eating of empty calories and the having of non-marital sex have in common is that they are indulgements. This is not the reason why non-marital sex is considered a sin. Indulgements are not necessarily bad in moderation; it's when they are excesive that they degrade into gluttony, which is a sin. Non-marital sex is sinful for its own reasons that do not parallel the indulgement of sweets. Non-marital sex breaks charity, but a Snickers bar does not. Edited April 26, 2005 by return2truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 [quote]Non-marital sex is sinful for its own reasons that do not parallel the indulgement of sweets. Non-marital sex breaks charity, but a Snickers bar does not.[/quote] Unless of course you are having a Snickers bar during non-marital sex. Then that's a whole different thing. Then you're being sinful and rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theculturewarrior Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 "Thou shalt not commit adultery." This is merely a Catholic thing now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crispy Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 26 2005, 11:05 AM'] Unless of course you are having a Snickers bar during non-marital sex. Then that's a whole different thing. Then you're being sinful and rude. [/quote] :rotfl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 26 2005, 10:05 AM'] Unless of course you are having a Snickers bar during non-marital sex. Then that's a whole different thing. Then you're being sinful and rude. [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Do Milky Way bars count? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 The food/sex analogy, while clever on the surface, is at heart a sophistic argument. Sexual intercourse, by its very nature, is a communion of two PERSONS. This is a very important principle in Catholic theology, personhood. Persons are to be loved, not used. They are persons, not things. Food, on the other hand, is not a person. Eating food is not a communion of love between two persons. It is a two-fold act of nourishment and enjoyment by one person, who is receiving that nourishment and enjoyment from a thing, not a person. Things are to be "used". Persons are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Werd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 I admit to treading into the whole sex is about love and food is just about food thing as my first post indicates. But the fact still remains that eating as I described is still unnatural and separting the good taste and nourishment. I don't see how it's not against the natural law according to the Catholic Church. I suppose all food provides some sort of nourishment.. I think. I know there's hard candy that has no calories.. but I'd imagine some of it would get absorbed one way or another. The only way for the Catholic Church to say itself if for this to be the case. If there are foods that don't provide any, which I'm not sure honestly, then it seems that it should be wrong to eat it. I suppose there is also what that dude said about gluttony is simply an inordered affinity for food, in which case it's been immoral all along and the Catholic Church just didn't rezloie that in particulars... development of doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 Please constrain yourself from the term Catholic Church. You have been asked more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Eremite Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 [quote]But the fact still remains that eating as I described is still unnatural and separting the good taste and nourishment. I don't see how it's not against the natural law according to the Catholic Church.[/quote] Again, this has nothing to do with anything. You are comparing two completely different things. Sexual intercourse is a communion of PERSONS. Food is not a person. There is no spiritual union between a man and his food. He doesn't take it out to dinner. IT IS dinner. The reason separating the physical dimension of intercourse from the unitive dimension is wrong is because the physical dimension is an exchange between two PERSONS. Persons are not to be used for personal pleasure. They are to be loved. Food, on the other hand, is not a person. It can be used for a variety of things, including nourishment and pleasure. Gluttony does not consist in eating something because it is good, but in doing so to the point where it becomes an idol, rather than a gift from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted April 28, 2005 Share Posted April 28, 2005 It's really just a bad analogy. For example, the staff at Wendy's doesn't refuse to serve me because I ate at McDonald's yesterday. In fact, food is often used as an analogy to material love to separate it from spiritual love. I love pizza. However, if I want to stop eating my pizza, I can just throw it away and not love it anymore. That is how premarital sex and other sinful acts are. It's loving the person the way you love food. When you're done you discard it. Sexual love was never meant to be like this. Sexual love was meant to be a lasting bond between two individuals. That is why you hear people say stuff like, "sex will change our friendship," or how people often feel uneasy when they see someone with whom they previously had a sexual relationship. Besides, even good analogies can only go so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 (edited) [quote]Food is not a person... Persons are not to be used for personal pleasure.[/quote] I never claimed that food a person or that it's loved in the same way that humans are. You guys seem to be the ones tieing the two together. All I am saying is that just as sex acts outside marriage goes against the natural law according to your church, eating food should also go against the natural law for similar reasons, just not the love part. I am not tying them together. What I am tying is that sex outside marriage has a spiritual and pleasure sides to it while food has nutritional and pleasure to it. So the question is can the pleasure be separted? There is a difference, I grant you that, but maybe similar reasoning should prevent abuse of food. It seems that the body is the temple of the holy spirit so you'd think as I have been saying. I suppose this could get into a whole lot of things, like taking a hot bath for cleaning/pleasure, though in this analogy the water isn't so much merging with the person. The analogy can't be made as a proof but it is food for thought. Especially the thought that perhaps you can enjoy sex acts outside of the marital act heathfully yet still do the marital act lovingly just as you can do that with food and pleasure. (though again no analogy) Anyway, don't focus so much on trying my analogy for my argument. Think of the similarities then think about natural law and what it'd have you do according to your churches standards. Or just forget about the analogy and think about natural law with a clean slate. Edited April 28, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now