eating and sex

[dairygirl4u2c]

[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?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Candy with no food or calories?

Generally, you try to use analogies which reflect reality.

[return2truth]

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

[Jaime]

[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.

[theculturewarrior]

"Thou shalt not commit adultery." This is merely a Catholic thing now?

[Crispy]

[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:

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[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]

[cmotherofpirl]

Do Milky Way bars count?

[Guest Eremite]

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.

[cmotherofpirl]

Werd.

[dairygirl4u2c]

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.

[cmotherofpirl]

Please constrain yourself from the term Catholic Church.

You have been asked more than once.

[Guest Eremite]

[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.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

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.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[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

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I never claimed that food a person or that it's loved in the same way that humans are.[/quote]

I never said you did. What you did do, however, was equate the eating of food with the communion of love in intercourse. The analogy is illogical because the subjects are completely different. On one hand, you have two PERSONS, and on the other hand, you have a person and a thing.

[quote]All I am saying is that just as sex acts outside marriage goes against the natural law according to your church[/quote]

This is incorrect. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is natural (ie, the acts themselves), but morally illicit. (Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are not natural).

[quote]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?[/quote]

Yes, it can, as I have already explained twice. Food is not a person; it is a thing. Things are to be used. You don't worry about their feelings, because they have none. You don't worry about their rational soul, because they don't have one. They exist solely for the purpose of being used. Eating food because it is good is a function of using food. Eating food because it is nutritious is another function of using food. How it is being used is irrelevant, so long as the particular function does not conflict with Christian conduct.

[quote]I suppose the analogy can't be made but it is food for thought.[/quote]

It's good food for thought for philosopy students who want to study non-sequiturs and illogical premises. I'll grant you that.

[quote]Especially the thought that perhaps you can enjoy sex acts outside of the marital act heathfully yet still do the marital act lovingly must as you can do that with food and pleasure. (though again no analogy) [/quote]

That is an analogy. That is the definition of an analogy. But your analogy (or comparison, or whatever else you want to call it) does not hold up, because the fundamental premises are incongruous.

Animals, like foods, are things to be used. When a rancher raises stock, and then slits their throats, you don't see Catholic pro life marches against this. If they were slitting the throats of Jews, you would see Catholic pro life marches against this. Why? Because Jews are persons. Animals are not. The two premises are incongruous. Just Because it's ok to slaughter animals, it does not follow that it is therefore ok to slaughter Jews. In the same way, just because it's ok to enjoy food in itself, it's not therefore ok to enjoy sexual pleasure outside of marriage.

You need to recognize that your premises are irreconcilable.

[infinitelord1]

like i said in the other thread.......it is not the same as having sex outside of a marriage, but is the same as using contraceptives during sex.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]What you did do, however, was equate the eating of food with the communion of love in intercourse. The analogy is illogical because the subjects are completely different.[/quote]

I am not equating them. But you obviously don’t understand what you say when you say “equate”. I am not equating them on a face value level. They are not the same thing there. I am equating them on a greater level, which is that they may be able to be distinguished into viable components (love and pleasure or nourishment and pleasure) used in similar manners.

I say you must not understand the purpose of equate because you do not understand the purpose of an analogy. That is why I said that eating and sex are not analogies when I said “no analogy”. I was trying to communicate on your level; I apologize that I said it was not an analogy. I said no analogy because you are thinking that because the things being compared are different, I can’t use the analogy. I was trying to get you to look past the analogy aspect/fact that the two things being compared are different on their face value, ie sex and eating, and to look at my point aspect of the analogy.

[quote]Eating food because it is good is a function of using food. Eating food because it is nutritious is another function of using food. How it is being used is irrelevant, so long as the particular function does not conflict with Christian conduct.[/quote]

You say they are perfectly fine as different functions. That’s just you. Some people might argue that they must be used together. My ultimate point is that like eating being separated into two components and used legitimately as such, you can separate sex into the components and used legitimately.

You’ll attack it because of the incongruencies in the analogy instead of the point being made. From the way you're responding, you’d likely be the person who was stuck saying “Jesus said he was a door, when clearly he is a person and the door is material.” Jesus was of course talking about how he let’s people into something, in this case heaven. Let me explain more.

You can say, much like a window let’s cool air in, so too does a pet door let pets into a house. The analogy is that both let animals into a house. If pet doors don’t let animals into a house, then your analogy is not good. If they both do, then it’s a good analogy. If I think that pet doors don’t let pets in, I’d say the window is not like a pet door, and maybe it’s like a lid. If there is a question of whether or not the pet door does let animals in, much like sex might not be bad, then the pet door analogy is good to get me to understand your argument and my analogy is good to get you to understand my argument.

If you think that the purposes of sex must be combined, then use the analogy that sex is like a pair of shoes. You can wear just one, but only just one pair is not right. I am not going to beat you up over the incongruencies in that analogy or any analogy because it’s just an analogy. I understand your point.

I am not saying that because of this analogy, you must follow my argument. I am hinting at that I admit. I would never expect someone to follow something because of an analogy. I'm sure you've been frustrated by people who couldn't get past the analogy, like those Jesus and the door folk. Step back and think about what you're saying. You fail to understand what an analogy is used for.

Your myopic view of my analogies is illogical. I would like you to forget my analogy and just think about sex (or food, but let’s stay focused) with a clean slate since you do not understand the significance or logic related to analogies.

Edited April 28, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Paladin D]

Mmmm.... hershey bar...

Hershey bar + romance = absolutely fantastic.

How would I know? I can only dream...