eating and sex

[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...