OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
23d ago
Sounds like a Christian should have reached out to her and told her that she is loved - explained forgiveness, sanctification, and water that does not leave you thirsty. Instead, she got a mob calling her names.
Minnesota Legitimacy Crisis
A legitimacy crisis can occur when two different groups interpret laws in different ways. This is bad because you wind up with two sets of people in the same jurisdiction, each abiding by different laws, living in parallel legal realities, and whether they are caught violating the law or not depends on which member of the group is enforcing it at the time.
In predominately Blue Minnesota, the state legislature found itself in a tie between Republicans and the DFL (what Democrats call themselves over there.) This made Democrats pretty worried, because it meant they would need to work with Republicans this session.
Then disaster struck - one of the DFL candidates who won their House seat, Curtis Johnson, was not qualified to serve in the legislature, because he did not live in District 40B as the state constitution requires. This leaves the seat vacant until a special election can be held. This gave the Republicans an advantage over the Democrats, something the DFL could not tolerate.
So the Democrats refused to show up to the legislature when they were legally required to do so. They were sworn in in secret, and didn't show up. On the first day of the legislative session, the Democratic Lt. Governor showed up, called the House to order, and then said, "You don't have quorum, so you can't do anything, I adjourn the House."
To have quorum, you need a majority of the House's members. Democrats are saying that there are 134 House Seats, half of 134 is 68, therefore the Republicans do not have quorum and cannot do anything.
However, because Curtis Johnson’s seat has been declared vacant by the MN Supreme Court, there are not 134 House members. There are 133. A majority is therefore 67 members—which is exactly what the House GOP has.
Where it gets weird is there are two competing norms written in two different books. Mason's Manual (which governs the Minnesota Legislature’s operations) says:
The total membership of a body is to be taken as the basis for computing a quorum, but, when there is a vacancy, unless a special provision is applicable, a quorum will consist of the majority of the members remaining qualified.
Cushing’s Law Practice of Legislative Assemblies, 9th Edition (1874), which Mason's Manual cites, says:
When the number, of which an assembly may consist, at any given time, is fixed by constitution, and an aliquot proportion of such assembly is required in order to constitute a quorum, the number of which such assembly may consist and not the number of which it does in fact consist, at the time in question, is the number of the assembly, and the number necessary to constitute a quorum is to be reckoned accordingly.
Which can be interpreted as that the number of seats determines quorum, BUT Minnesota does not have the number of seats fixed by constitution. So it does not appear that this rule applies. Conveniently, when Democrats cite the rule, they leave out the first part of the quote that references the constitution.
This is a good write up if you want to read all the details: https://decivitate.substack.com/p/legitimacy-crisis-in-my-minnesota. Or if you prefer something written by an actual expert, and not an internet hobbyist, this brief provides a good (if biased for GOP) summary: https://macsnc.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/document.do?document=be8019a34d345648b6cf0337f337a772f1da69c972cc5609aef2144e14f85fc1
Meanwhile, the GOP has elected the first Black Speaker of the Minnesota House and is trying to get things done. The DFL is trying to stop them from getting things done by avoiding work and by sending people to harass the GOP in the legislature.
Oral Arguments are going in front of the Minnesota Supreme court today, at 1 PM local. The Supreme Court is 7-0 Democrats’ appointees. I think the GOP's argument has a stronger legal basis, but that does not mean that the DFL will lose the case. What happens then?
One problem is that courts have a limit with their jurisdiction over other branches of government. We saw that with the recent SCOTUS ruling on presidential immunity. Can the legislature keep saying, "No, you do not have say over legislative proceedings, we are going to keep doing what we are doing?" The Minnesota Constitution states clearly, "Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings."
So you can wind up in a situation where the GOP legislature passes a law saying that it is illegal to wear red T-shirts on a Sunday, a GOP cop arrests someone for this new crime, and whether or not you end up in prison depends on if the judge is GOP or DFL. People in Minnesota have a real risk at the moment of living in a land where two sets of laws are enforced by two sets of people.
Of all things, I think this is the greatest risk to our country. Not worried about Minnesota specifically (sorry to whomever lives there, please escape at your earliest convenience.) But something similar can happen on the Federal level, might very well happen with Trump trying to shred norms as best he is able. And if that happens... it could spell the end of the Republic (or at the least a Civil War until we can force States to sign an amendment that corrects whatever crisis arose.)
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
If you click the Heritage link in my comment above it has documentation on over a thousand proven instances of recent (last 30 years) voter fraud in the US leading to over a thousand criminal convictions and overturning dozens of (generally local) elections. I think my priors are better supported than yours.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
Is the woman saying this while batting their eyes? Acting bashful or coy? Are her hands clasped behind her or is she leaning forward? She might actually want you to flirt back. But that doesn't mean she would accept a proposition. She might want a proposition, to stroke her ego, but she wouldn't accept it.
It's about posture and context. "I would like to spend more time alone with you" is way different from "I'm glad you were the one assigned to this task" or "I like to hang out with our group of friends, of which you are one." It's the woman's job to figure out how to get across "I would like to spend more time alone with you" without crossing the line of plausible deniability (because if she has to throw herself at a man, he's probably not invested in her.)
Is it fair that it's this way? Women have the more vulnerable role in continuing the species. She needs a man who will actually support her, and that is generally a man who seeks her out.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Romans 4:3 doesn't say Abraham was justified as a one time thing, it just says that Abraham believed God and this was counted as righteousness. I really don't think you can apply the definiteness of the aorist in 4:2 to the sentiment of 4:3. For example, if I said, "If I was an elephant I would always remember everything. I remember my kid's birthday." I'm saying: I do forget things, I'm not an elephant, but I do remember my kid's birthday. One thing (my kid's birthday) can be tallied into the list of things I remember, but I don't remember everything on account of me not being an elephant. Abraham is not justified (in a single action) an account of him being perfect in himself, but he did do an action that is counted as righteous/just.
If Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 justified him entirely, why didn't his act of faith in Genesis 12:4 do so? For as Hebrew's 11:8 says, "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go." So Abraham obeyed God by faith, did not get justified as a single one time action, he believed God later on and was justified then and for always? What was the distinction?
justification refers to the same thing as what is seen in 4:3: counting as righteous
I understand that the words Justification and Righteousness are the same root words in the Greek, just translated into English in whatever word is most intelligible. But just like I used the same word "remember" in both sentences in the Elephant example, someone might use the same word ironically in two different sentences to contrast the two (always remember in the first sentence, simple remember in the second, like aorist justify in the first verse, not-aorist righteous in the second.)
Regarding verses 6-8, of course Catholics believe in the forgiveness of sins after repentance. But having sins forgiven does not itself make someone righteous forever afterwards.
For example, Paul is quoting Psalm 32. In Psalm 32, David is repenting of the sins he committed in 2 Samuel 11, murder and adultery. But before David sinned, God called David, "a man after his own heart." So we have a just man, who sins, then repents and is forgiven.
Verse 9 connects the forgiveness of sins with Abraham's state of Circumcision. Abraham was able to have one righteous action while uncircumcised. "The faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness."
Yes, I get that some of this goes beyond treating the passage as an unorganized list of propositions and thinks he has purposes behind what he's saying; I think that's warranted and the proper way to read scripture.
Yes, I agree that we shouldn't treat the passage as an unorganized list of propositions. That was my position from the first comment. The purpose of the whole letter is that Abraham is our father in faith and Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to participate in faith and receive Justification from Jesus.
You are trying to read between the lines to come up with a meaning that this passage does not readily appear to have. You are arguing that justification is a one time deal by applying the tense of one sentence to the tense of the subsequent and tying different verses together from different parts of the letter.
St. Paul is refuting the Judaizers, who believed that the Law, an impersonal entity, had the power to give life. The Judiazers were wrong. As Galations 3:21 says, "if a law had been given which could make alive, then righteousness would indeed be by the law." (Another verse that supports that the Torah was insufficient to provide salvation by itself.)
The Judaizers in Rome believed rather that one need only obey the law externally, which would obligate God to repay them with eternal life, as an employer pays a worker his wage (Romans 4:4). Arguing against this, St. Paul teaches us we must approach God on a personal level, with faith and sincere contrition for our sins. God will, in turn, graciously forgive us (Psalm 32), infuse us with supernatural virtues, and credit them to our account as righteousness.
Faith is the foundation and the root of all justification. Without faith, no works will justify. However, this does not preclude the possibility that God might reckon the believer's faith to him as righteousness again at some other point in his life. Just looking at Abraham we see justification in Genesis 12:4, Genesis 15:6, Genesis 22. There are other virtues, such as Hope and Charity, which God might credit to a believer's account as well, after that first act of justification through Faith has been accomplished.
Do you believe that the intention of Paul in these verses was to argue against a group of people who believed Justification was a continuous process? Or was Paul's intention in these verses to argue against a group of people who believed Gentiles needed to be circumcised in order to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus? I think you would acknowledge the latter, but say that the words Paul is using implies that he believes Justification was a one-time event. If that is the case, I think I'm reading the purpose of the passage as a whole.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
This is what I was afraid of. As more evidence mounts that the obesity epidemic is caused by something environmental (either a change in dietary composition or a toxin of some sort), a "cure" has arrived just before the root cause has been proven. Instead of targeting the root cause and removing whatever is causing obesity from the environment, slimness will now be sold to those who can afford it. I think even if researchers identified the cause of obesity, there would be a lot of incentive to keep the obesity train rolling, to everyone's detriment.
And obesity is just the most visible symptom of metabolic disease. Could we still be at increased risk of cancer, heart disease, etc even with these miracle drugs?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
When the Bible says "God is good" it is usually in the Psalms, sometimes in the prophets, and refers to God's faithfulness to His covenant with Israel. God is good = God keeps promises. I would argue that His nature doesn't let Him do anything but keep His promises, so it's not a statement that "God is well-behaved."
The other place we see God is good is when Jesus says, "What do you mean by calling me good? No one is good but God alone." Which you have to admit is cryptic and does not necessarily point to God being well-behaved.
it seems incoherent to conclude that God is beyond human judgement, while also asking man to sing His praises. Praise is by definition a value judgement. If God isn't an admirable being, then on what basis could the Church recommend that I praise Him, i.e. express admiration?
God is adorable, but He is definitely beyond human judgement. We can only adore him and praise him by analogy.
supposing you substitute your preferred nonexistent deity whose nature is destructive and malevolent
You are assuming that malevolence is a presence instead of a lack. A being that is pure act without any potential cannot be destructive, only creative. Destruction is a privation of the good, not an active existence. Your arguments have lots of assumptions that you have not examined.
And then you go on to say that the theology that is routinely mocked for arguing about friction-less thought experiments like "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" isn't set up for friction-less thought experiments. :) There is a lot for you to learn if you want to open up a few philosophy books. Good day to you.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
6mo ago
What's the deal with the drones?
Are there even any drones?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
10mo ago
That seems to be an attempt to make others adopt your frame that it is possible to change genders. If it is not assumed that it is possible to change genders, then it explains quite handily why a pre-pubescent or post- menopausal female is still considered a woman, and a post- castration male a man.
In biology there is always a "when functioning properly" attached to descriptions. A heart pumps blood "when functioning properly." A kidney filters waste "when functioning properly." A female organism produces large gametes at the species-appropriate point in the life cycle "when organs are functioning properly." Reproduction is generally only applicable at certain times in an organism's life cycle, but a bitch that isn't in heat is still a bitch.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
11mo ago
Women's Sports exists much for the same reason the Special Olympics exists. It carves out a place for athletes with specific limitations to compete against others with the same specific limitations.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I love America. I love George Washington. I love Thomas Jefferson. I love Betsy Ross. I love our stupid national anthem with notes that most people can't reach. I love the Constitution, and the Liberty Bell, and our National Parks. I love the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers. I love our aircraft carriers and our war planes. I love the Grand Canyon and the Bald Eagle. I love supermarkets and farmer's markets. I love our long and fraught journey to secure each citizen the greatest freedoms enjoyed by man on Earth.
I love them in the same way I love my parents, who I didn't choose and aren't necessarily the best, but they raised me as best as they were able. To say that one country is the same as another to me would be to say that one random couple is the same as my parents to me.
Is this something only people raised in America feel, or does anyone else feel that way about their homeland?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2yr ago
I am a Catholic and the moment the Pope claims to have the ability to make something the Church has taught was inherently immoral "not a sin" is the moment I stop being Catholic. Because at that point it's all made up. (Please no zingers here about how it's all made up anyway, I am not going to try to prove Catholicism on TheMotte.) The Pope is one of the last absolute monarchs in the world, but he is absolutely beholden to the dogma of his predecessors. He maintains power to the extent he convinces Catholics that he is genuine.
Now, the Pope has the ability to make something not inherently immoral a sin. For example he could say all Catholics must abstain from wearing pink. But it wouldn't become inherently immoral to wear pink. He would be saying, as a matter of obedience to the Church, he's asking us to abstain from the color pink. (To increase our self-discipline or as reparation for our sins or whatever.)
If he commanded someone to do something inherently immoral under this framework they would be obligated to disobey and no sin would be incurred. We are only obligated to obey just laws.
It sounds complicated when I write it out but I hope the underlying principle makes sense. The Pope is subject to the divine law, but can impose an additional ecclesiastical law on adherents.
and you have been arguing that because the "forseen unintended" case is ok, the "forseen intended" case is too.
Can you explain to me where? The forseen intended case of what? I'm worried that you're ascribing to myself a moral belief I do not hold, something like, "Sex is solely for babies" or something like that.
Let me make an analogy:
The point (telos if we're getting fancy) of a gun is to fire small ballistics.
The point of genitals is to have sexual intercourse.
The reason why firing small ballistics has large moral interest is due to its relation to killing people.
The reason why sexual intercourse has large moral interest is due to its relation to making human life.
Guns were made for the purpose of killing people.
Sexual intercourse exists evolutionaryily for the purpose of having babies.
Firing a gun can be done intentionally to kill people and for target practice/sport, etc.
Sexual intercourse can be done for making babies and for pair bonding and pleasure (for example, post menopause or when the woman is already pregnant.)
Using a gun for a reason other than to shoot ballistic missiles is suspect, because that's not what it's there for. Imagine someone trying to use a gun as a utensil, or to fire a wad of chewed bubblegum. It's weird and not quite right. Maybe not immoral, because a gun is just a human artificat made my humans to carry out our will. But it's weird, isn't it?
And perhaps if the gun was made by hand by someone who wanted a work of art at firing ballistics, the maker would weep to see the person they sold it to using it as a prop to keep up their wobbly chair. The maker wouldn't necessarily be upset to see the gun in a holster or on a wall, or to find out it never killed anybody. But they would be upset to find out someone poured maple syrup down the barrel.
Using genitals for reasons that do not end with sexual intercourse is suspect because that's just not what they are there for. The disconnect between a Catholic and some others is that non-Catholics might think of their bodies as their own, like in the sense of an artificat. It's another thing the nebulous "you" can manipulate. Catholics don't see our bodies as artifacts. They are something given to us, the physical expression of our eternal souls, and we can make our creator weep with what we do with ourselves.
If you're wearing a condom, you aren't having sexual intercourse in the sense a Catholic defines it. The penis is not ejaculating in a vagina. It's more like a kind of mutual masturbation. Please notice that I have not once argued that contraceptives are wrong because it avoids conception or that there is anything wrong about intending to avoid conception.
That said, I don't think the Catholic position on sexual morality will necessarily make sense to outsiders, in the sense most will feel they will feel the need to bind their consciences to it. As weird as it is, I have seen more than one person convert specifically because they felt the Catholics were correct on sex so strongly that the Church couldn't help but be correct in other things - but this is not the common path. Most people need to accept the Catholic claim on other things before accepting this one.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
More information on Prevost available here: https://collegeofcardinalsreport.com/cardinals/robert-francis-prevost/
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
If we want DOGE to be popular long term, so that Congress backs its recommendations and they become more permanent than the sitting president, we need to stick with things normies can understand and get behind. If Edgy Tweets turns 5% of normie opinions against DOGE, then DOGE can lose significant ground in the theater that matters..
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
Can we have an election day without Drama?
-
In Cambria County, PA, all precincts are reporting issues scanning completed ballots. Lines are getting longer as some choose to leave unscanned ballots in a secure box and others choose to wait for the scanner to work. Local judge has permitted voting hours to extend to 10 PM due to the issues.
-
In Georgia, a couple of polling stations have received bomb threats. Georgia Secretary of State claims they are coming from Russia.
-
In Harris County, TX, someone running for the State Senate is claiming that voter totals have been shifted from Red precincts to blue precincts. This one is weird but the main gist is (1) First published record of early voting had numbers in 1-2 Thousands for HCC West Loop South and only 800 for Kashmere. The second record of early voting decreased votes in HCC West Loop South and increased for Kashmere. (2) The Senator candidate says he was at HCC in person on one of those days and personally handed out 1000 buttons that day, now it is showing fewer people voted than he handed out buttons for. (3) Someone who participated in Early Voting at another precinct that had the vote counts lowered is reporting that she is not showing as someone who voted yet. (4) Ann Harris Bennett, the Tax Assessor for Harris County, TX, apparently has not gone to work since 2020. She is "in charge of voter registration and tax collection."
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
Agreed, but it's kind of like how the Secret Service was viewed up until two months ago. This is Butler, PA happening to another honored USA institution.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
It worked for me.
because jerks are more likely to not care about the woman's intent and just go for it.
That's one good reason to avoid being alone with a guy for the first several dates and to save sex for marriage. Helps weed out the jerks.
All the traditions work together, we can't just throw away one and expect it to work.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I think I'll say that his faith was counted as righteousness at both times, and was justified throughout
I think this agrees with the Catholic perspective. Abraham received initial justification through faith, and multiple acts counted as righteousness.
I wouldn't argue that Paul is arguing for this specifically in Psalm 32, but are you aware that Catholics believe that we receive initial justification at Baptism (an act of faith that makes us adoptive siblings of Jesus Christ) and that at this initial justification all prior sins are forgiven?
Paraphrasing verses 2-9:
2 - Abraham wasn't especially just by himself.
3 - Abraham's belief in God is a righteous act.
4 - Wages as a due - ties back to verse 2, Abraham wasn't getting just wages because he wasn't justified by his own abilities.
5 - Ties back to verse 3, Faith in God is righteous. (side note, in Hebrew poetry it is common to have two repetitive stanzas, back and forth, with slight differences to distinguish between. I'm not saying Paul is writing poetry here, but he seems to have a similar rhythm. I highly recommend reading Robert Altar's The Art of Biblical Poetry if you haven't already.)
6 - David said that God can credit righteousness apart from works of the law.
7 - Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away.
8 - Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count.
I think our differences in our readings of this passage might be smaller than I thought
Are you aware that (some) Lutheran leaders and (some) Catholic leaders got together, hashed out our differences and realized we mostly agree on Justification?
I think where the difference is going to stay is the imputation vs infusion. Catholics believe God's word is efficacious, He can neither deceive nor be deceived. (Numbers 23:19: God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?)
From our perspective, imputed righteousness seems like God both deceiving and being deceived. But does Romans 4 really argue for imputation?
In context, versus 5-8 quote the first verses of Psalm 32. Traditionally, quoting the first verse of a Psalm means to draw someone's attention to the whole psalm. Hence, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
What is the rest of Psalm 32?
When I kept silent, my bones wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy on me; my strength was sapped as in the heat of summer.
Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.”
And you forgave the guilt of my sin. Therefore let all the faithful pray to you while you may be found; surely the rising of the mighty waters will not reach them. You are my hiding place; you will protect me from trouble and surround me with songs of deliverance:
I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you with my loving eye on you. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.
Many are the woes of the wicked, but the Lord’s unfailing love surrounds the one who trusts in him Rejoice in the Lord and be glad, you righteous; sing, all you who are upright in heart!
Or basically - Guilt, repentance, confession, forgiveness. Paul isn't referencing a passive forgiveness of sins after an initial justification of faith, but rather another act of righteousness that lead to forgiveness. This one is interesting because Paul isn't referencing an act of faith, it's an act of repentance.
It is commonly believed that Psalm 32 is in reference to 2 Samuel 12. What Paul was likely emphasizing is that the forgiveness of David's sins took place outside the law. 2 Samuel 12:13, "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan replied, 'The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.'" There's no Levitical sacrifices, no Yom Kippur. Just an honest confession and sorrow for sin.
This "counting" as righteousness word is going to require a word study. The word for "counting" here is elogisthe and logizetai. So where else is the word used in the New Testament?
For I consider [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us (Romans 8:18).
Paul later uses the word in this letter (and others) to describe earnest acts of the mind: considering and regarding. It's not reference to a modern financial accounting system. Another couple strong examples:
When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason [elogizomen] like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things (1 Corinthians 13:11).
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell [logizesthe] on these things (Phillippians 4:8)
It it is not a word used to show some outside force providing a title that is the opposite of the real object. In each of these cases, the subject is thinking about reality.
Applying that to this passage, God truly is considering, reasoning, regarding Abraham as doing something righteous when Abraham performs his act of faith.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Christianity says that our ancestors were all wrong, for thousands of years, and then a guy in the middle east figured out the truth
You're getting pretty strong pushback on this phrasing, for good reason. Most are arguing the "ancestors were wrong" angle, which is very fair. I'd like to push back on the idea that the Christian's claim is that Jesus claims he figured out the truth.
Jesus never said he figured out the truth. He said he IS the Truth. He isn't a sage in the desert who discovered something outside himself. He said that he is sent. He says that he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The way to salvation isn't to learn what he has learned, it is to follow him. "No one can get to the Father except through me." Not "through my teachings." "Through me."
This is absolutely bizzare, if you have studied global religions. Jesus is unique in this regard. He doesn't claim to have brought fire from the gods, he claims to be the flame. He doesn't claim to have received divine revelation, his followers claim that he is the divine revelation.
His teaching is secondary - a nice lovely tantalizing icing - compared to his life, death, and resurrection.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
8mo ago
This report from a lineman mentions kids walking around naked looking for parents. Other reports of naked kids: https://x.com/MrsMcGeek/status/1843003502047707335.
Trying to find the video with the rope thing but it's hard to find the exact video when I have watched hundreds over the last week and X doesn't make it easy.
The equivalent to changing heart conditions would be to go from a infertile to fertile, which happens all the time without changing sex. I'm not convinced you understand me and I don't know any way to be clearer.
We do have categories for female too young to be fertile - girl. But going from girl to woman is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in age. And going from infertile to fertile is not a change in sex/gender, just a change in health.
Do you not know what a bitch is or are you being cute? I would never call a woman a bitch, we are different species.
Edit: it's like you are claiming that someone with heart disease isn't in the phylum Chordata. A disease does not change a classification.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
11mo ago
Women's Olympics is the carve out though. It just happens to be broadcast at the same time and place.
I hate Thanksgiving. Last Thanksgiving I had three kids in the ICU for breathing problems. This year I forbade my husband from making Thanksgiving dinner, despite how irrational it is. I tried to explain to him, it's not really superstition, it's more like how some people hate Christmas because a relative died on Christmas. It's like that but slightly less drastic. Thanksgiving is now associated with Children's Hospitals.
Then he bought several pies for the donation drive at work. The minute after he checked out, I got a call from my daughter's school to pick her up due to a cough, and not bring her back without a doctor's note. A couple days later, I'm in the ER with a sick 8 month old.
I think I am now superstitious.
Edit: baby is fine, just has RSV and an ear infection. We're home now and I will have a Thanksgiving dinner out of spite for the supernatural miasma (or viruses) that plague us.
I think you are saying intent matters. Intent does matter (edit: and i think I made that clear in the above comment when I talked about the subject knowing that they were likely/unlikely to get pregnant that day, and my comparisons were to other situations where it was possible/impossible to be pregnant). Someone having sex when not fertile intends to have sexual intercourse. Someone not having sex while fertile intends to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex - the most normal way to avoid pregnancy imaginable.
I think there is a conflation between sexual intercourse and the possible results of sexual intercourse - or conception. Sexual intercourse is the ejaculation of a penis in a vagina. A lot of its moral significance comes from what sexual intercourse can do - it can make a new human life. But sexual intercourse is not in itself the making of a new life.
Sexual intercourse between two married people is morally allowed (and considered a fairly good thing) in Catholicism, even if it does not lead to conception. Intending to avoid making a new child is also morally allowed, in the sense that you can choose not to have sex.
(Edit to add: the reason why this would be wrong is not that there is no likelihood of pregnancy, but because it's not sexual intercourse.)
Perhaps to secular people - but then there are so many smart devices now that will do it for you. To Catholics, the selling point is that you are avoiding having a child by avoiding having sex, which is the most normal way to avoid conception imaginable.
More options
Context Copy link