A theological argument FOR abortion

[Areopagite]

Sometimes life is definitely a burden. This is attested to by those people who find their life intolerable, and commit suicide to end it.

At the very least, I was showing that “life is not a burden” by showing that some lives (at least sometimes) are not burdensome. So, that obviously proves that life does not equal burden. Burdensomeness is not intrinsic to life per se.

While it is technically incorrect to say that “life is a burden” it can be technically true to say “life is burdensome sometimes” insofar as some lives can undergo suffering. I don’t disagree with that.

Let’s imagine life as a function, like a sin(x). Some of the curve is above the x-axis, other parts are below. The part which is above represents the “good life”, the part which is below represents the “bad life”. If the good part is overwhelming, of course that life is predominantly good. If the bad is overwhelming, the life is predominantly bad. How could it be otherwise?

This doesn’t contradict what I said.

 

[Areopagite]

That is a pretty bad example. The “running over others” has nothing to do with ownership. If the teenager has no right to sell the car, or to destroy it, he does not own it, and thus it cannot be considered a true gift.

Yes it can. The teenager would certainly think so. Honestly, if the parents give the teenager a car for his birthday, even though the parents still have technical ownership over it … then the teenager will still consider that a gift. And most normal teenagers would be pretty happy about that.

Now, that’s what most people will think. Most people will define a gift (like I defined it previously) in such a way that the above example qualifies as a gift. Maybe you don’t like that use of that word. But most people do. So, when the Catholic Church says, “Life is a gift from God,” they are not defining it like you (and maybe the few others) define it. They are defining it how the vast majority uses that particular assembly of letters.

Well, let’s do a little analysis here. By absolute or universal morality (which is a Christian concept, not mine) we understand that an action is either morally right or wrong, no matter who commits it. This includes murder, genocide, what have you.

Once again, depends how you define “universal morality.” You have not clearly defined what you mean by it (or what you think we mean by it).

Now, regarding the term “universal” … in logic, this is considered a universal proposition:

All dogs are animals.

Whereas, this statement, by contrast, is considered a particular proposition:

Some dogs are brown.

But, also, this can be considered a universal proposition:

All of these dogs are brown.

And this a particular proposition:

Some of these dogs are barking.

Now, just because a statement is “universal” doesn’t mean it applies to all things. When I say that “all dogs are animals” is a universal statement, it doesn’t mean that “rocks are animals” too. But also, when I say that “All of these dogs are brown” is a universal statement, it doesn’t mean that “All dogs are brown” … and yet it’s still called a universal statement. The term “universal” does not need to refer to “all existing things” or even just “all things in a species” but sometimes just “all things within a particular group” (or aggregate, to be precise).

Hence, you’re objection to the idea that “God can morally do some things that all humans can’t do even though there is suppose to be universal morality” is too simplistic. It is true that there are universal moral principles for all humans … but this does not necessarily include God (because it’s universal among humans). I’ll admit, when one says “universal morality” … that can be vague … but one should not necessarily imply that all moral principles laid out for humans to follow necessarily apply to all things as well (like rocks, birds … and even God).

If you make an exception for God, saying that God can do whatever he wants, then this absolute or universal morality becomes meaningless. How can something be universal if there are exceptions? If there is one exception, why can’t be others?

If I say that “all dogs are animals” is a universal statement, and then someone says “Well what about rocks? Are rocks animals? You said it was a universal statement! Are rocks exceptions?” … what do I say to that? Um … I would say that rocks were never part of the thing I was talking about. They aren’t even exceptions. They are a … “digression.” I don’t know what you could call them in that case.

But the problem just starts here. Why do you consider God exceptional? You said: “because God created everthing”. Now if this would be a universal code, then the manufacturer could take back his car from you, since he was the creator of the car. Presumably you would not agree to this, especially if it were your own car.

If the manufacturer never relinquished his ownership of the car, then he can be right to take back the car. However, if he did relinquish it, and then tries to take it back, then he would be wrong. God, as Christianity believes, never relinquishes ownership of His creation. Hence, He can take back anything if He wants.

So it is not the fact that God is the creator, which gives him special “rights” or special “excuse”.

No, it is exactly that reason. (with the idea that he never relinquished ownership of his creation)

Then what is it? Is it God’s power? That would lead to the moral code that “might makes right”. I bet you would not accept that, either. It could justify the extermination of any “weak” group by any strong one.

If you mean “might” and “strong” to mean “having complete ownership over something” then, in this case, I would say yes.

So there remains one option. You say that God can do anything whatever he wants, not because he is creator, or because he is stronger than us, rather because he is God. And that is the fallact of special pleading.

As I explained, God can do whatever He wants with His creation because He has complete ownership of it due to the fact that He created everything in it. That’s what I’m saying.

All those who commit suicide have a different opinion.

So … are you saying that just because some people have a different opinion than us … that means we’re wrong? Hmm. Obviously you don’t believe that. So … what’s your point here?

 

[Betterave]

Of course not, but it would be a mistake to assume that the teachings of God are always self apparent in the text. For example, when Jesus says that “you must be born again to enter the kingdom of God,” what the heck is that supposed to mean? We need to have the guidance of the Church and an understanding of the philosophy and theology that underly the issue to fully understand what scripture teaches, at least in most cases. That doesn’t devalue scripture at all, it simply places it in the correct place.

Song of Songs is an excellent example- without understanding philosophy, it would seem that the book is mostly about sexuality- but that’s not the full truth. We need the guidance of the Church and the nuanced view given by philosophy to fully appreciate scripture.

This reminds me of the Kama Sutra discussion. RD supposed that the correct interpretation of the Kama Sutra was that is was a sex manual. You imply that the obvious interpretation of the Song of Songs is that it’s “about sexuality.” I think your view is short-sighted in that you are supposing that the Biblical word is dead, in a sense, i.e., that when we consider the Bible per se, we ought to refer to the ‘obvious’ first impression given by the text as normative in determining what the Bible per se is (i.e., confusing and ambiguous). This is because you are speaking of philosophy and theology and the Church as extrinsic to the Biblical word. But that seems to me an artificial and inaccurate way to view the Bible. Simple reflection question: does anyone honestly read the Bible and come across the Song of Songs and say: “interesting: there is a book mostly about sexuality in here - this clearly has nothing to do with the rest of the disjointed, confused, ambiguous narrative found in the other books”?

 

[Sarpedon]

This reminds me of the Kama Sutra discussion. RD supposed that the correct interpretation of the Kama Sutra was that is was a sex manual. You imply that the obvious interpretation of the Song of Songs is that it’s “about sexuality.” I think your view is short-sighted in that you are supposing that the Biblical word is dead, in a sense, i.e., that when we consider the Bible per se, we ought to refer to the ‘obvious’ first impression given by the text as normative in determining what the Bible per se is (i.e., confusing and ambiguous).

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. If you define the interpretation of the Bible as correctly interpreting it in terms of context and style, then obviously there isn’t any ambiguity there. However, there is no guarantee that anyone is going to do that, so in a practical sense we can say that at first glance, much of the Bible is ambiguous. That doesn’t mean that the truth cannot be discerned from it, but doing so requires far more than simply quoting a passage at face value. Merely handing a Bible to someone with no guidance on how it is to be interpreted can and will lead to 30,000 different interpretations, and the Protestant experiment demonstrates.

This is because you are speaking of philosophy and theology and the Church as extrinsic to the Biblical word. But that seems to me an artificial and inaccurate way to view the Bible. Simple reflection question: does anyone honestly read the Bible and come across the Song of Songs and say: “interesting: there is a book mostly about sexuality in here - this clearly has nothing to do with the rest of the disjointed, confused, ambiguous narrative found in the other books”?

It depends on what they have been exposed to. I don’t understand what your real objection is. Taken on it’s own, the Bible is ambiguous- as the 30,000 Protestant denominations illustrate. That’s undeniable. Sure, you can claim that all those people are deficient in their interpretation, which may well be the case, but when I refer to “ambiguity” I am referring to normal people, not perfectly educated individuals.

 

[Stephen168]

I agree with this very strongly. Indeed the end (in and by itself) never justifies the means.

You never

But some means and some ends can form a justifyable sequence (while others may not). Suppose that by taking away one cent (forcefully) from a very rich person would somehow (magically) alleviate all the hunger in the world? This means and that end could be justified, very easily.

Except when you do.

 

[Betterave]

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. If you define the interpretation of the Bible as correctly interpreting it in terms of context and style, then obviously there isn’t any ambiguity there.

Yes that is a rather trivial claim, and I don’t know if it’s true, since it’s not clear what it’s claiming. What is being referred to by context and style? These terms are being understood with respect to the text as a whole? Or, what would seem to be the case, with respect to the particular context and style of particular books/passages? In any case, this is basically my point: insofar as you are talking about the Bible itself, the text itself, correctly understood as a whole, is not confusing or ambiguous. However (as you say)…

However, there is no guarantee that anyone is going to do that, so in a practical sense we can say that at first glance, much of the Bible is ambiguous. That doesn’t mean that the truth cannot be discerned from it, but doing so requires far more than simply quoting a passage at face value. Merely handing a Bible to someone with no guidance on how it is to be interpreted can and will lead to 30,000 different interpretations, and the Protestant experiment demonstrates.

There was never any question, as far as I’m concerned, about quoting isolated proof passages. And we can add that merely handing the Bible to someone with no guidance is not a “biblical” procedure.

It depends on what they have been exposed to. I don’t understand what your real objection is. Taken on it’s own (not-= “taken in itself”), the Bible is ambiguous- as the 30,000 Protestant denominations illustrate. That’s undeniable. Sure, you can claim that all those people are deficient in their interpretation, which may well be the case, but when I refer to “ambiguity” I am referring to normal people, not perfectly educated individuals.

You may not understand my point but you’ve come very close to stating it here. When you refer to “ambiguity” you are referring to people who read the Bible, not the Bible itself.

 

[Sarpedon]

You may not understand my point but you’ve come very close to stating it here. When you refer to “ambiguity” you are referring to people who read the Bible, not the Bible itself.

Yes, although there are some things that are not mentioned at all in the Bible.

 

[R_Daneel]

Because we have no other option. This is similar to your criterion, yes, but there is a fundamental difference- it is impossible to go further back than the intellect itself, while it is indeed possible to go further back than science as an application of the intellect.

Actually, intellect is not the final point. Intellect is a special feature of the brain. Beings without this feature, or even without brain will react to the environment. The final stopping point is the empricial reaction, common to all living creatures, starting from the simplest, one-cell organisms.

Huh? You ask me how Catholics understand something, and I explain it. You then condemn this as “mysticism” and go on to state that the Bible is in fact against temporal endeavors. You as an atheist are welcome to do that, but realize that no Catholic pays attention to your private interpretation. The simple fact of the matter is that Catholicism is not opposed to temporal matters. The Bible is ambiguous on the matter (what is “the wisdom of God” and “the wisdom of man?”), but the Church has highly developed philosophy to explain its overall position, which extends far beyond the Bible while including it. By arguing against this you only strengthen the Catholic case- the Bible itself is confusing and ambiguous, and that’s why we need an official interpreter.

Unfortunately, the “official” interpreter cannot claim to be “one and only” qualified interpreter. I know that it “claims” exactly that, but as we all know, “claims” are dime a dozen.

It’s not that simple- the question of causation extends far beyond the level of such physical phenomena. Among other things, it includes the relationship between the potential and the actual, or why things come into and pass out of being. Why is it that things that have being lose being? How can something nonexistent gain being? Does it come from other being? Is that being autonomous? These are only a few examples of the questions present in the field.

And again, we differ. As far as I am concerned, the phrase “potential existence” is an oxymoron. Imagine a proposition like this: “I have a potential apple on top of a potential book”. How would you react to a propostion like this?

You need to give me more substantial answers if you want me to address your questions. You are really illustrating my point perfectly. When I give you examples, you immediately label them as mystical and ask me for evidence that science is not the only reality. You immediately dismiss anything non-scientific as not real, and therefore not capable of providing evidence for something non-scientific!

That is not what I say. I am very much willing to contemplate your non-physical propostions, but they cannot come from the Bible, or other such sources.

The universe may not exhibit agape, but we do. Why else do we act as anything another than survival machines? Philosophy is cumulative, science included. You will not accept any of my reasons for this agape with your current philosophical position. That’s why we are engaging at the deepest levels, such as epistemology.

If I remember correctly, you said that the foundation of reality is “love”. Now, obviously the universe does not exhibit “love”. Some humans do exhibit “agape” - others do not. referring to your next paragraph, when yo ask about percentages, what percentage of humans exhibit “agape”, and at what percentage of “time”? Precious little, I would say.

You didn’t answer my question. We do not need to only talk about humans. Is there a certain numerical statistical percentage that a species must have in terms of preferences for those preferences to constitute the good for that species?

How about 100%? Every being exhibits an “effort” (not in the human sense) to survive. The often mentioned suicidal rush of the lemmings is just an urban legend. That is the source of the ontological good, not to be confused with moral good. And thus “nihilism” is “dead”.

 

[R_Daneel]

At the very least, I was showing that “life is not a burden” by showing that some lives (at least sometimes) are not burdensome. So, that obviously proves that life does not equal burden. Burdensomeness is not intrinsic to life per se.

While it is technically incorrect to say that “life is a burden” it can be technically true to say “life is burdensome sometimes” insofar as some lives can undergo suffering. I don’t disagree with that.

Well, it certainly depends on the definition of “burden”. I do not equate it with the “bad” things in life. All life must maintain itself, collect and consume food, for example. That is a “burden”, no one “asked for”. If I recall correctly, we had a discussion that God creates life, without its consent, and the life is an ungoing “burden”. It is the living creatures’ responsibility to maintain themselves, God makes no contribution to it. So, we, the living beings are “forced” to make an effort, but you maintain that God still does not give us the “ownership” over our life. Maybe you have no problem with considering this a just and fair arrangement, but I certainly do.

A side question, maybe to be contemplated at some other time: “are there some concepts where we can find a common definition, and start from there?”. I find this very uncertain.

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes it can. The teenager would certainly think so. Honestly, if the parents give the teenager a car for his birthday, even though the parents still have technical ownership over it … then the teenager will still consider that a gift. And most normal teenagers would be pretty happy about that.

Now, that’s what most people will think. Most people will define a gift (like I defined it previously) in such a way that the above example qualifies as a gift. Maybe you don’t like that use of that word. But most people do. So, when the Catholic Church says, “Life is a gift from God,” they are not defining it like you (and maybe the few others) define it. They are defining it how the vast majority uses that particular assembly of letters.

I have no problem with your example - as stated, but I am not sure about the details. If the kid has full resposibility for the maintenance of the car, must pay the property tax, must pay the insurance, must pay the gas, etc… but cannot sell the car, cannot give it away to someone else, in other words the parents still “retain” the ownership, then to call it a gift is very misleading. Yes, the parents paid the price - they did not have to do it. But once that is done, they are out of the picture.

Hence, you’re objection to the idea that “God can morally do some things that all humans can’t do even though there is suppose to be universal morality” is too simplistic. It is true that there are universal moral principles for all humans … but this does not necessarily include God (because it’s universal among humans). I’ll admit, when one says “universal morality” … that can be vague … but one should not necessarily imply that all moral principles laid out for humans to follow necessarily apply to all things as well (like rocks, birds … and even God).

So you say that there is a moral code for humans, and there is a moral code for God - and yet you maintain that there is an “absolute, universal” moral code. And you deny that this is a contradiction. What can I say?

If the manufacturer never relinquished his ownership of the car, then he can be right to take back the car. However, if he did relinquish it, and then tries to take it back, then he would be wrong. God, as Christianity believes, never relinquishes ownership of His creation. Hence, He can take back anything if He wants.

Well, this kind of a “moral” code is repugnant - to say the least. When I asked you about the hypothetical problem of those kitchen implements, you said you would hate that. I wonder why?

If you mean “might” and “strong” to mean “having complete ownership over something” then, in this case, I would say yes.

The concept of “might makes right” says exactly that. The strong one can do whatever he wants to, and the weak one has no appeal.

As I explained, God can do whatever He wants with His creation because He has complete ownership of it due to the fact that He created everything in it. That’s what I’m saying.

Human “creators” do not have that right. You apply special pleading - which is a fallacy.

 

[WatchingMedia]

Right- and Left-Handedness

By 8 weeks, 75% of embryos exhibit right-hand dominance. The remainder is equally divided between left-handed dominance and no preference. This is the earliest evidence of right- or left-handed behavior.

www.ehd.org

or
ehd.org/movies-index.php

Anyone who believes in the Bible at all, will know “Thou shall not kill”.
The Ten Commandments - for all Christians and Jews.
This is basic, and no silly self made arguement to the contrary is worth replying to.

usccb.org/
For a recent explanation of; “The Distinction between Direct Abortion and Legitimate Medical Procedures”

 

[Betterave]

Yes, although there are some things that are not mentioned at all in the Bible.

Yes, although one of the things the Bible *does *quite clearly mention is that there are some things that are not mentioned…

 

[Betterave]

Well, it certainly depends on the definition of “burden”. I do not equate it with the “bad” things in life. All life must maintain itself, collect and consume food, for example. That is a “burden”, no one “asked for”. If I recall correctly, we had a discussion that God creates life, without its consent, and the life is an ungoing “burden”. It is the living creatures’ responsibility to maintain themselves, God makes no contribution to it. So, we, the living beings are “forced” to make an effort, but you maintain that God still does not give us -]the/-] unlimited “ownership” over our life. Maybe you have no problem with considering this a just and fair arrangement, but I certainly do.

One need not believe in God to recognize as an ineluctible empirical fact that no one has unlimited “ownership” over his own life.

So you say that there is a moral code for humans, and there is a moral code for God - and yet you maintain that there is an “absolute, universal” moral code. And you deny that this is a contradiction. What can I say?

:cringe:
RD, I’m sure Areo will respond to this in his admirably patient way, but he explained very clearly why it is not a contradiction. You are allowed to disagree with him, but you should at least try to read what he wrote and respond to it.

 

[Sarpedon]

Actually, intellect is not the final point. Intellect is a special feature of the brain. Beings without this feature, or even without brain will react to the environment. The final stopping point is the empricial reaction, common to all living creatures, starting from the simplest, one-cell organisms.

I don’t think you read anything I wrote. Our characterization of the intellect as the “brain” is based on scientific observation and reasoning, which is an application of the intellect. It is necessary to have an intellect before we apply it. Therefore, we cannot start by considering the intellect as a brain. It can only be the intellect, and any further characterization of the intellect we make is necessarily rooted in the correctness of that intellect itself. Before we label the intellect a brain, we must use the intellect to make that characterization. Therefore, our intellect precedes any application of it, and our intellect precedes and is necessarily independent of science as an application.

Unfortunately, the “official” interpreter cannot claim to be “one and only” qualified interpreter. I know that it “claims” exactly that, but as we all know, “claims” are dime a dozen.

Including your “claim” that Catholicism is opposed to temporal endeavors. I have already shown why your claim is false by comparing it to the official claims of Catholicism. The official claims of Catholicism are indeed authoritative for Catholic life and its achievements, whereas yours are not. Therefore, your initial claim that Catholicism could not be responsible for temporal gains is simply a false claim.

And again, we differ. As far as I am concerned, the phrase “potential existence” is an oxymoron. Imagine a proposition like this: “I have a potential apple on top of a potential book”. How would you react to a propostion like this?

Potentiality lacks spacial dimensions. Imagine a proposition like this- there is a potential existence for you to get stronger by training. Remember that existence used in terms of being, which can increase or decrease in finite beings. By training, I can increase my strength and therefore gain being that I lacked before. As a weak individual who did not train, my strength was still in potentiality.

That is not what I say. I am very much willing to contemplate your non-physical propostions, but they cannot come from the Bible, or other such sources.

Can you provide a single time when I have quoted the Bible in this discussion?

If I remember correctly, you said that the foundation of reality is “love”. Now, obviously the universe does not exhibit “love”. Some humans do exhibit “agape” - others do not. referring to your next paragraph, when yo ask about percentages, what percentage of humans exhibit “agape”, and at what percentage of “time”? Precious little, I would say.

There is not a percentage of human behavior that qualifies agape, simply because agape is not determined by human beings. The good of man is outside of man, and whether or not people actualize that end is of no consequence to the end itself.

How about 100%? Every being exhibits an “effort” (not in the human sense) to survive. The often mentioned suicidal rush of the lemmings is just an urban legend. That is the source of the ontological good, not to be confused with moral good. And thus “nihilism” is “dead”.

So… what happens if I, as an individual, break this rule and give up? The mass suicide of lemmings may be an urban legend, but is human suicide an urban legend?

 

[Betterave]

I don’t think you read anything I wrote…

Which invites the question, RD: Did you read anything that he wrote? I’ll guess the answer is yes. So the question should maybe be: Did you actually try to understand and engage with anything he wrote? It’s not my intention to be snide or presumptuous, but it’s impossible to avoid the thought that perhaps you’re not giving it an honest effort.

 

[R_Daneel]

I don’t think you read anything I wrote.

Of course I read everything you say. Obviously I have trouble understanding it.

Our characterization of the intellect as the “brain” is based on scientific observation and reasoning, which is an application of the intellect. It is necessary to have an intellect before we apply it. Therefore, we cannot start by considering the intellect as a brain. It can only be the intellect, and any further characterization of the intellect we make is necessarily rooted in the correctness of that intellect itself. Before we label the intellect a brain, we must use the intellect to make that characterization. Therefore, our intellect precedes any application of it, and our intellect precedes and is necessarily independent of science as an application.

And this is where you lose me. I have absolutely no idea what this “intellect” is. To me intellect is a thought process, using observation, making inferences, etc… I don’t know what it means to you. If it is some disembodied “stuff”, then I am afraid, I will have to label it “mysticism” again. But I wait until you explain.

Including your “claim” that Catholicism is opposed to temporal endeavors. I have already shown why your claim is false by comparing it to the official claims of Catholicism. The official claims of Catholicism are indeed authoritative for Catholic life and its achievements, whereas yours are not. Therefore, your initial claim that Catholicism could not be responsible for temporal gains is simply a false claim.

You mean that my interpretation is different from the “official” Catholic one. You did not show it to be false - merely different.

Potentiality lacks spacial dimensions. Imagine a proposition like this- there is a potential existence for you to get stronger by training. Remember that existence used in terms of being, which can increase or decrease in finite beings. By training, I can increase my strength and therefore gain being that I lacked before. As a weak individual who did not train, my strength was still in potentiality.

I don’t think this is a good example. Your muscles were there, their ability to move them strenuously was there. To exercise more is not something that was physically missing. There is just one “existence”. Yes, some philosophers (Aristotele, for example) created some “potential existence” as a buzzword. Going back to your original proposition, STEM does not come into being and does not disappear from being.

There is not a percentage of human behavior that qualifies agape, simply because agape is not determined by human beings. The good of man is outside of man, and whether or not people actualize that end is of no consequence to the end itself.

Then what is “agape”, by your interpretation? To me this is just another human concept, concocted by the ancient Greeks, and it stands for “divine love”, or maybe “unconditional love”, in modern parlance.

So… what happens if I, as an individual, break this rule and give up? The mass suicide of lemmings may be an urban legend, but is human suicide an urban legend?

Then you remove yourself from the gene-pool. Animals never commit suicide. Plants don’t commit suicide. Only humans can do it, when they consider their life intolerable. Humans are the only beings (to our current knowledge) who can create irrational goals, who can engage in artifically concocted endeavors, who are able to live an unnatural life.

 

[R_Daneel]

RD, I’m sure Areo will respond to this in his admirably patient way, but he explained very clearly why it is not a contradiction. You are allowed to disagree with him, but you should at least try to read what he wrote and respond to it.

Which part of “special pleading” don’t you understand?

 

[Areopagite]

Well, it certainly depends on the definition of “burden”. I do not equate it with the “bad” things in life. All life must maintain itself, collect and consume food, for example.

I think “burden,” in addition to maintaining oneself, requires suffering. If one is not undergoing hardship while maintaining oneself, but enjoying the process thoroughly, then I would not call it a burden (and such things sometimes happen). Hence, life does not necessarily imply burden.

That is a “burden”, no one “asked for”. If I recall correctly, we had a discussion that God creates life, without its consent, and the life is an ungoing “burden”.

If God owns you completely, then He can give you anything He wants, even if you do not consent to it. You have to explain in greater detail why this is unjust. I don’t see why it would be.

It is the living creatures’ responsibility to maintain themselves, God makes no contribution to it.

Well … He maintains all things in existence, continues to cause plants to grow, and of course can contribute multiple interventional aids to people in their work.

So, we, the living beings are “forced” to make an effort, but you maintain that God still does not give us the “ownership” over our life. Maybe you have no problem with considering this a just and fair arrangement, but I certainly do.

I’ll grant you that the suffering that happens in life is undesirable (and it wouldn’t have happened, had not the head of the human race, Adam, sinned). However, to say that God did not have a right to allow undesirable things to happen would be in error. It is unpleasant, yes, but I do not see how it is unjust for God to create us even though we will undergo suffering. To equate unpleasantness with injustice is something I, personally, am not prepared to do.

A side question, maybe to be contemplated at some other time: “are there some concepts where we can find a common definition, and start from there?”. I find this very uncertain.

I’m sure we agree on many concepts. The only way to find them is just to keep on talking.

I have no problem with your example - as stated, but I am not sure about the details. If the kid has full resposibility for the maintenance of the car, must pay the property tax, must pay the insurance, must pay the gas, etc… but cannot sell the car, cannot give it away to someone else, in other words the parents still “retain” the ownership, then to call it a gift is very misleading. Yes, the parents paid the price - they did not have to do it. But once that is done, they are out of the picture.

Why is it misleading to call it a gift in that case? Honestly, if the kid didn’t have to pay the insurance, tax, or gas or anything like that, a lot of kids would think that a better deal. It’s definitely a gift.

Also, as I said before, lending a room in your house to a homeless person is a gift too, even if you don’t give ownership of it to him at all.

Once again, you can deny these things are gifts. But most people wouldn’t. I don’t know why you would. You’re seem to be making up a new definition for it.

So you say that there is a moral code for humans, and there is a moral code for God - and yet you maintain that there is an “absolute, universal” moral code. And you deny that this is a contradiction. What can I say?

Oh, come now, you didn’t read my last post at all.

In summary, it can be said that “the universal moral code” (that the Catholic Church often speaks of in one way or another) is universal among humans. It does not extend to God or animals or rocks, etc. When something is “universal” … it doesn’t necessarily mean that it applies to all existing things necessarily, but can simply apply to a designated group. That’s how “universal” is used in formal logic, at least.

Please, read my previous post.

Well, this kind of a “moral” code is repugnant - to say the least.

Why is it repugnant? If God never relinquished ownership of His creation, then He still owns everything in it. It’s not repugnant. It’s logical. Sure, you can dislike it for one reason or another, but such hatred for it would not be rational.

When I asked you about the hypothetical problem of those kitchen implements, you said you would hate that. I wonder why?

I suppose one reason why I would not like it is that I didn’t know the conditions in which I was suppose to use them, and I was still punished.

However, as I said, to relate this analogy back to the theology, you’re soul will not be damned if you honestly didn’t know a particular act was a sin. So, your kitchen utensil argument does not illustrate any particularly effective objection.

The concept of “might makes right” says exactly that. The strong one can do whatever he wants to, and the weak one has no appeal.

If you mean the strong (i.e. those who own a given thing) can do whatever he wants to (i.e. with the thing that he owns … as long as he doesn’t damage things he does not own), and the weak one (i.e. those who don’t down that given thing) has no appeal (i.e. as long as the “strong” doesn’t infringe the rightful property of the “weak”).

If that’s what you mean, then I agree with this.

 

[Areopagite]

Human “creators” do not have that right. You apply special pleading - which is a fallacy.

Human creators cannot do ANYTHING that they want with their products because they may want to damage things that they do not own. For example, I may create a car and then drive over mailboxes with it. Even though I created and own the car, I do not have such legitimate authority over the mailboxes. Hence, it can be said that human creators cannot do ANYTHING they want with their creations.

However, God created EVERYTHING. Hence, there are no limitations that can come about of the kind mentioned above.

 

[Betterave]

Of course I read everything you say. Obviously I have trouble understanding it.

Is that graciousness I’m hearing? Very nice!

You mean that my interpretation is different from the “official” Catholic one. You did not show it to be false - merely different.

He didn’t show it to be false, but he did inform you in a reasonable way that the grounds you cited in favor of your view are false.

I don’t think this is a good example. Your muscles were there, their ability to move them strenuously was there. To exercise more is not something that was physically missing. There is just one “existence”. Yes, some philosophers (Aristotele, for example) created some “potential existence” as a buzzword. Going back to your original proposition, STEM does not come into being and does not disappear from being.

Who cares about STEM per se (other than physicists, who have a limited, strictly professional interest)? When you cite Aristotle creating “some ‘potential existence’ as a buzzword,” what are you referring to exactly? Could you explain your understanding of Aristotle on this point so it sounds like more than an arrogant dismissal of, for all we know, something you quite possibly know next to nothing about?

Then you remove yourself from the gene-pool. Animals never commit suicide. Plants don’t commit suicide. Only humans can do it, when they consider their life intolerable. Humans are the only beings (to our current knowledge) who can create irrational goals, who can engage in artifically concocted endeavors, who are able to live an unnatural life.

:lightbulb: So humans are unique among all the animals! They can ‘create’ irrational goals (back to the self-deception theme, perhaps?)! They are capable of living an ‘unnatural life’! Now who’s talking ‘mysticism’?