Pot? Mortal sin? Sin at all?
#51
(07-12-2010, 01:11 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: That is false.

Muscles get strong for a variety of reasons, the first being neuro-muscular efficiency. Actual increase in muscle fibre size does happen, but as a response to only certain stimuli, some of which being caloric excess, proper hormone environment and sufficient volume of activity. Scar tissue reduces strength drastically.

Nope, you're wrong.  Scar tissue is precisely what causes bulked up muscle.  Exercise of muscles causes micro-tears in the fibers, which leads to scar tissue.  Caloric intake effects the energy you have to keep contracting the muscles, not to the build up of strength itself.

(07-12-2010, 01:11 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: Actually, the number of muscle cells we have does not change normally.

I was referring to the liver, brain and lung cells.  You will never have any more muscle cells than what you were born with, and if a fiber is destroyed, it is destroyed for good.

(07-12-2010, 01:11 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: You are wrong. The governments of this world do not define what is good and evil.

I wasn't giving governments authority to define good and evil, I was saying the sin is in breaking a law that does not cause one to sin by obeying it.  Smoking marijuana is not objectively sinful, afaik.
Reply
#52
(07-12-2010, 01:14 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 12:19 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(07-10-2010, 11:52 PM)DrBombay Wrote: What are we, Puritans?  Bah.  Next you'll be telling me gambling is a sin. Bah.  Bah, I say.   :bronxcheer:

Yeah, and a quick masturb isn't a problem either.

While we are at it, let us watch Twilight.

I mean, why not, right?!  ::)

I don't get it. Anytime someone takes a stand against something that could very well be immoral, that person is labeled as a Puritan. What is wrong with traditional Catholics these days?

In this new spirit of labeling - in the spirit of Vatican II - I'm going to start labeling these people as Modernists.

It's only fair, right?

That is fair, but I do not think it is accurate. Calling them "lukewarm" is better I think. They seem afraid to be seen as any different from others in any way. "Well, it is all ok, let us not have any problems".
Reply
#53
(07-12-2010, 01:39 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(07-12-2010, 01:11 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: That is false.

Muscles get strong for a variety of reasons, the first being neuro-muscular efficiency. Actual increase in muscle fibre size does happen, but as a response to only certain stimuli, some of which being caloric excess, proper hormone environment and sufficient volume of activity. Scar tissue reduces strength drastically.

Nope, you're wrong.  Scar tissue is precisely what causes bulked up muscle.  Exercise of muscles causes micro-tears in the fibers, which leads to scar tissue.  Caloric intake effects the energy you have to keep contracting the muscles, not to the build up of strength itself.
No, that is false. If that were true, we'd all have the same size muscles as when we were babies.

Actually, muscles are likely to increase in size because of fluid retention first. Growth of actual muscle tissue is very slow and gradual.

Here is an example. I am somewhat muscular. I could increase the size of my muscles without moving a finger. How? By eating more with my current level of activity.

Anyway, this doesn't matter except that people don't take you seriously and cause themselves harm by a mistaken idea of how the body works.

Quote:I wasn't giving governments authority to define good and evil, I was saying the sin is in breaking a law that does not cause one to sin by obeying it.  Smoking marijuana is not objectively sinful, afaik.

Still? I just posted the text from the Catechism. I'll do it again:

Quote:2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Yes, many natural substances contain things which are "drugs", but I think this refers to the taking of a substance for those drugs.

Tetrahydrocannabinol is the drug, and the only reason people use marijuana in the way they commonly do (I do not know if the plant has any other uses for inside human bodies).
Reply
#54
Smoking pot is a sin against good taste. ;)
Reply
#55
(07-12-2010, 02:07 AM)Resurrexi Wrote: Smoking pot is a sin against good taste. ;)
For those with youtube accounts:
Reply
#56
(07-12-2010, 01:14 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 12:19 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(07-10-2010, 11:52 PM)DrBombay Wrote: What are we, Puritans?  Bah.  Next you'll be telling me gambling is a sin. Bah.  Bah, I say.   :bronxcheer:

Yeah, and a quick masturb isn't a problem either.

While we are at it, let us watch Twilight.

I mean, why not, right?!  ::)

I don't get it. Anytime someone takes a stand against something that could very well be immoral, that person is labeled as a Puritan. What is wrong with traditional Catholics these days?

In this new spirit of labeling - in the spirit of Vatican II - I'm going to start labeling these people as Modernists.

It's only fair, right?

I'm sorry, but watching television is not a sin.  Neither is smoking or gambling or drinking alcohol.  Anyone who says these things are sins have adopted a Puritan mindset.  Please note, I'm not saying YOU have said this, just making a general comment.

On the other hand, there are, I think, some plausible arguments for a Catholic to make in claiming pot is a sin.  I don't buy the arguments, but they aren't necessarily entirely specious.  My only point in making the comment is that we're Catholic and we're allowed to have fun.  Being a traddie doesn't mean one has to adopt a Luddite lifestyle and look down one's nose at those who don't.  That's all.  :tiphat:
Reply
#57
(07-11-2010, 11:45 AM)verenaerin Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 12:19 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(07-10-2010, 11:52 PM)DrBombay Wrote: What are we, Puritans?  Bah.  Next you'll be telling me gambling is a sin. Bah.  Bah, I say.   :bronxcheer:

Yeah, and a quick masturb isn't a problem either.

While we are at it, let us watch Twilight.

Just for that, the next time I'm down there I am going to take you to see the newest one.
Cool. I'll buy the snacks and junk (but you have to get us there and get the tickets). I need an aisle seat because I have to piss at the pictures (it is tradition, I have to randomly get up to relieve myself every 30 minutes...).
Reply
#58
(07-11-2010, 08:20 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 07:52 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 07:29 PM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote:
(07-11-2010, 02:41 PM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: Obedience to civil authority is an obligation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm

Civil authority is of God, not by any revelation or positive institution, but by the mere fact that God is the Author of Nature, and Nature imperatively requires civil authority to be set up and obeyed.

God....bind(s) men in conscience to observe the behests of the State within the sphere of its competence.

A government agency is the one who bans it usually. It is regulated by the FDA. Is the FDA our government?

Is there a legitimate distinction between "the government" and "a government agency"?  When you pay taxes, do you say "I'm not paying taxes to the government, I am paying taxes to the IRS?".
Government agencies like the FDA can make regulations without following the process of government.

To put it this way, the FDA can classify and reclassify various substances by its own decision. It is making law and enforcing it, without following the government as defined in the US Constitution. Also, income tax is also forbidden by the US Constitution.

What you are speaking about is called "administrative law".....regulations made by government agencies under mandate from Congress or the Executive, and having the force of law.

As to income tax being illegal under the Constitution, read the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Reply
#59
(07-12-2010, 08:40 AM)DesperatelySeeking Wrote: What you are speaking about is called "administrative law".....regulations made by government agencies under mandate from Congress or the Executive, and having the force of law.
Yes, I know that. I also see no provision for it in the original framework of our government.

There was a reason congress was made.

Quote:As to income tax being illegal under the Constitution, read the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I have read it.

Reply
#60
(07-12-2010, 02:01 AM)Herr_Mannelig Wrote: No, that is false. If that were true, we'd all have the same size muscles as when we were babies.

Actually, muscles are likely to increase in size because of fluid retention first. Growth of actual muscle tissue is very slow and gradual.

Here is an example. I am somewhat muscular. I could increase the size of my muscles without moving a finger. How? By eating more with my current level of activity.

Anyway, this doesn't matter except that people don't take you seriously and cause themselves harm by a mistaken idea of how the body works.

I'm just going by what I was taught in Anatomy and Physiology.  Sorry man, it's scar tissue :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)