tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post111686662684315384..comments2024-01-15T05:32:24.873-05:00Comments on The Jon Rowe Archives: Jonathan Rowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6564473.post-44650651591683438082009-01-07T07:59:00.000-05:002009-01-07T07:59:00.000-05:00Anything can have a singular purpose, you just nee...Anything can have a singular purpose, you just need to define all these other purposes in terms of a more general purpose. Essentially, a things purpose is to be the thing that it is, that's really the singular purpose. An internal combustion engine's purpose is to power stuff. In a sense, using it as a doorstop may be considered sinful.<BR/><BR/>The non-procreative sexual act itself is contrary to the intended use of the reproductive organs. The concept per se is not what is sinful, it is the act itself. So, yes, any sexual act that is not open to the possibility of procreation is sinful. It's not the children themselves that are the issue here, rather it is the unifying nature of sex. Moreover, no one ever said that something with a purpose must fulfill the purpose each time, only that it not act contrary to the purpose. And God gave us free will, by the way, so even though he gave us the desire we have the choice to think rationally and deem certain desires, such as horniness, as something that should be controlled (horniness cannot justify non-consensual sex even though it is a God given desire).<BR/><BR/>As for the eye thing, it's not entirely clear that a closed eye is not fulfilling its purpose. Clearly it still sees the back or your eyelid, there is just no light. In fact, one may say that the kid is acting all too in accordance with his eyelid's purpose of covering the eye.<BR/><BR/>In general, I disagree with Feser's split of a man and woman form, I think humans only have one form, that is humans. men have their own forms and women have their own. It does not imply a split in the human form.<BR/><BR/>In the end, your arguments are unsatisfactory to refute a theory of natural law. Moreover, you have shown no evidence for me to believe that it is absurd for a squirrel to have an endless form. The fact that animals before squirrels were different from squirrels does not imply that squirrelness wasn't around before squirrels came to being, after all, squirrelness is just a concept.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02892276042849049862noreply@blogger.com