Ask an atheist a few questions.

[BlaineTog]

I’m very much aware of why Catholics don’t believe contraception and homosexuality isn’t good.

Ok.

So we’re back to my question: which part of Catholic sexual theology do you disagree with? Which part do you find fallacious?

*I’m not talking about prayers asking for a new corvette or even for my friend with sickle-cell not to die.

I’m talking about prayers of communication. “Talking” to God and trying to listen for a response. That never comes. And if that’s a stupid prayer, then there’s even another reason not to believe in your version of the Catholic faith at least.*

There’s no difference between those prayers and the prayers for your sick friend, none whatsoever. Talking to God isn’t what you need, and your friend may well need to die. Both are equally stupid, though the pejorative sense which “stupid” carries is unintentional, and just because a prayer is stupid doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pray it. You just need to remember to add “but not my will, but yours be done.”

 

[Exalt]

Ok.

So we’re back to my question: which part of Catholic sexual theology do you disagree with? Which part do you find fallacious?

Everything based on anything related to “God’s plan”. Which pretty much throws Catholic teaching on sexuality out the door.

There’s no difference between those prayers and the prayers for your sick friend, none whatsoever. Talking to God isn’t what you need, and your friend may well need to die. Both are equally stupid, though the pejorative sense which “stupid” carries is unintentional, and just because a prayer is stupid doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pray it. You just need to remember to add “but not my will, but yours be done.”

Asking God to communicate with people isn’t asking very much. It’s like a child asking his dad to sit down and have a chat.

The thing is, people talk to God all the time. And what does God give us?

Crying statues.

 

[BlaineTog]

Everything based on anything related to “God’s plan”. Which pretty much throws Catholic teaching on sexuality out the door.

Actually, take out “God’s plan” and you’ve made the concept of God incoherent. That isn’t the God of Catholicism, but a chimera god, a god of vague theism that made the world but didn’t have any reason to and doesn’t bother keeping up on things. So really, you’re saying you disagree with Catholic moral theology because you disagree with the Catholic conception of God. Which is circular logic if disagreeing with Catholic sexual theology is why (even part of why) you stopped believing in the Catholic conception of God.

Asking God to communicate with people isn’t asking very much.

Yes it is. It’s an implicit demand for a miracle, which is absurd on so many levels it’s not even funny, and even ignoring that in demanding to talk with God we’re inherently closing ourselves off from him, God still can’t give you what you’re asking for since it would ravage your free will.

The thing is, people talk to God all the time. And what does God give us?

Mostly, he gives us covert signs because we’re not ready for the overt ones. For example, this is going to be a very tough week for me, but when I got home on Friday, my package from Amazon arrived far earlier than it should have. Now you can read that however you like, but I’ve been reading through the book I got and it’s helped keep me sane, so I’m choosing to believe it was probably a covert pat on the back from God. A great flash of light and Jesus himself setting foot in my apartment I do not need, just a little help here and there, apparently.

Now no doubt, that sounds rather silly. God rushed my Amazon package to arrive right when I needed it? Yeah, right. Still, grace generally finds its way in in little, unexpected ways rather than big flashy ones.

 

[Exalt]

Actually, take out “God’s plan” and you’ve made the concept of God incoherent. That isn’t the God of Catholicism, but a chimera god, a god of vague theism that made the world but didn’t have any reason to and doesn’t bother keeping up on things. So really, you’re saying you disagree with Catholic moral theology because you disagree with the Catholic conception of God. Which is circular logic if disagreeing with Catholic sexual theology is why (even part of why) you stopped believing in the Catholic conception of God.

Oh, I see what you’re getting at. I initially disagreed with Catholic sexual theology (particularly on contraception and homosexuality) - on the grounds that I told you before. Basically, we need to be careful with preproduction and contraception is a great way to do that, and I see nothing wrong with homosexual expression. I don’t think “being open to the production of another human being” is a requirement for sexual activity.

Now, I still hold the above viewpoints, but I’ll add on the idea that I have no sense of “God’s plan” for anything. Including sexuality.

Yes it is. It’s an implicit demand for a miracle, which is absurd on so many levels it’s not even funny, and even ignoring that in demanding to talk with God we’re inherently closing ourselves off from him, God still can’t give you what you’re asking for since it would ravage your free will.

Actually, God *can *give me what I’m asking and not break my free will. Mohammed? Mary? The kids at Mejugore (sp?) and Lourdes? Paul? The apostles?

Please.

It’s possible and wouldn’t breach my free will.

Mostly, he gives us covert signs because we’re not ready for the overt ones. For example, this is going to be a very tough week for me, but when I got home on Friday, my package from Amazon arrived far earlier than it should have. Now you can read that however you like, but I’ve been reading through the book I got and it’s helped keep me sane, so I’m choosing to believe it was probably a covert pat on the back from God. A great flash of light and Jesus himself setting foot in my apartment I do not need, just a little help here and there, apparently.

Now no doubt, that sounds rather silly. God rushed my Amazon package to arrive right when I needed it? Yeah, right. Still, grace generally finds its way in in little, unexpected ways rather than big flashy ones.

There’s no reason to believe that your experience didn’t happen due to random chance. If it was late, it would be part of God’s plan. If it was on time, it would be part of God’s plan. If the package was lost in the mail, it would still be part of God’s plan.

The God you have come up with isn’t the God of the New Testament - who actually answers prayers. Who Jesus said of, “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.”

And don’t you think it’s a bit convienent that this God you’re told to believe in shouldn’t be asked to do things that would prove he exists? Sounds fishy to me, and doesn’t really go along with the whole idea that he’s a loving, personal God. An indifferent or bipolar God who doesn’t like to be disturbed, sure! But then, why would I care about that kind of God anyway? And what religion would I join that believed in that sort of God?

 

[BlaineTog]

Oh, I see what you’re getting at. I initially disagreed with Catholic sexual theology (particularly on contraception and homosexuality) - on the grounds that I told you before. Basically, we need to be careful with preproduction and contraception is a great way to do that, and I see nothing wrong with homosexual expression.

In general, why do you think we need to be more careful with our population? Sure there are a lot of people around, but a person’s existence is a good thing.

In specific, the Catholic church isn’t against family planning completelly. To a certain extent, each family needs to try to modulate how many children they can have based off how many they can support. But contraception puts a barrier in the sex act that makes the sex act a lie. Having sex is like you and your spouse pouring each other into a glass where they become inseparable and one; using contraception is like placing the two glasses next to each other and claiming that they’re one glass. It’s like putting a thin cellophane layer down the middle of the glass and pouring each cup into its own side, then claiming that they two are mixed. By extension, homosexual sex necessarily does this.

I don’t think “being open to the production of another human being” is a requirement for sexual activity.

Why? Given that sex is part of the sacrament of marriage, and given that marriage is the unification of two persons into one, and given that a child is the result of two people becoming one, how exactly can you get away without that openness to life? Granted, I’m being lax with my definitions here, but I think my question is clear enough (I’ll revise it if it isn’t).

*Actually, God *can **give me what I’m asking and not break my free will. Mohammed? Mary? The kids at Mejugore (sp?) and Lourdes? Paul? The apostles?

Please.

It’s possible and wouldn’t breach my free will.

First, I said “ravage,” not break. Big difference. God gives each person a particular amount of evidence. He doesn’t appear to everyone in a flash because most of them would then immediately turn to him, which isn’t fair to them because it’s altering their ability to choose freely (it makes it much much more difficult for them to choose against him). It also balances things on a much finer edge; the Angels that sinned against God were immediately damned for eternity, whereas on Earth we can bounce around.

Second, God’s revelations to Mary, the Apostles, Paul, etc. were all big deals. They were to prepare them for great things. Do you contend that you should have such a destiny?

There’s no reason to believe that your experience didn’t happen due to random chance.

Oh I’m completelly aware of that. As I said, it’s a choice, and a half-unserious choice at that. But it’s plausible, or at least possible.

If it was late, it would be part of God’s plan. If it was on time, it would be part of God’s plan. If the package was lost in the mail, it would still be part of God’s plan.

Likely so. But I also likely wouldn’t have noticed it.

The God you have come up with isn’t the God of the New Testament - who actually answers prayers. Who Jesus said of, “Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going to happen, it will be granted him.”

I would call that hyperbole, or possible in reference to the souls in heaven. Who on Earth can say that they have no doubt whatsoever, after all?

And don’t you think it’s a bit convienent that this God you’re told to believe in shouldn’t be asked to do things that would prove he exists?

Not particularly. After all, when Jesus did perform miracles, he specifically told his disciples not to mention it to anyone.

Let’s set up a situation. Jesus hijacks all the TV stations in the world and then simultaneously steps through everyone’s television to tell them, “By the way, I’m God. Worship me.” Most people would probably go, “Wow, would you look at that? Turns out Jesus is God afterall! I better hightail it to mass, pronto!” They’d go to mass for a while and then eventually go back to their old ways of acting, more or less, but some of them would become saints… sorta. Because for them, it’s not so much an act of faith that Jesus is God and that he Loves us but a recognition of the obvious, like that the Moon is a big rock orbiting the Earth, or that water is wet, and God doesn’t want that. Many would also pretend they hadn’t seen it, and many more would attribute it to other things. So really, it wouldn’t be a whole lot different than how things are now, except that those saints the event made wouldn’t be as good as they otherwise could have been.

Alternately, Jesus could just implant certainty into our heads (hypothetically, at least; I don’t know if this is really possible), but then we really wouldn’t have free choice in the matter, as we wouldn’t get to choose whether we believed or not.

Here, let me try another angle: let’s say that you’re in love with someone, and that someone isn’t sure whether or not they want to stay with you. Your very presence makes them want to be with you, and you’re an all-around great guy, but they aren’t so sure in general all the same. Now you love them, so obviously you’ll try to convince them to stay with you, but at the same time, they have to choose you as well, and it makes them hard to make an objective choice when you’re sitting there hugging them. So, do you constantly shower them with affection, or do you give them a little space?

 

[Exalt]

In general, why do you think we need to be more careful with our population? Sure there are a lot of people around, but a person’s existence is a good thing.

If we continue to multiply at the rate we’re multiplying now, we’re going to have to deal with the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation, as you know, is when an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In this case, the organism is the human being, and the habitat is the planet earth. Have we met that already? Probably not. But what about in a hundred years? What about in a thousand years? Human being’s sexual desires won’t change. Contraception provides an opportunity for human beings to continue to experience sexual intercourse. If families only want to have one or two children, but also want to have sex, contraception seems like a perfectly acceptable way to make that happen.

In specific, the Catholic church isn’t against family planning completelly. To a certain extent, each family needs to try to modulate how many children they can have based off how many they can support.

Right. “Natural family planning” is the buzz word, right?

But contraception puts a barrier in the sex act that makes the sex act a lie. Having sex is like you and your spouse pouring each other into a glass where they become inseparable and one; using contraception is like placing the two glasses next to each other and claiming that they’re one glass. It’s like putting a thin cellophane layer down the middle of the glass and pouring each cup into its own side, then claiming that they two are mixed. By extension, homosexual sex necessarily does this.

I don’t think it makes the sex act a lie. And the “two becoming one” idea is a metaphor. It doesn’t actually happen literally, of course. You could say “two create one” - that would make sense.

Why? Given that sex is part of the sacrament of marriage, and given that marriage is the unification of two persons into one, and given that a child is the result of two people becoming one, how exactly can you get away without that openness to life? Granted, I’m being lax with my definitions here, but I think my question is clear enough (I’ll revise it if it isn’t).

I don’t believe in sacraments. I don’t believe in grace or God. And I don’t think two people are literally unified into one. They may feel that way, but it doesn’t actually happen. It’s a good metaphor, and one that should be used, but it’s still just a metaphor.

First, I said “ravage,” not break. Big difference. God gives each person a particular amount of evidence. He doesn’t appear to everyone in a flash because most of them would then immediately turn to him, which isn’t fair to them because it’s altering their ability to choose freely (it makes it much much more difficult for them to choose against him). It also balances things on a much finer edge; the Angels that sinned against God were immediately damned for eternity, whereas on Earth we can bounce around.

Second, God’s revelations to Mary, the Apostles, Paul, etc. were all big deals. They were to prepare them for great things. Do you contend that you should have such a destiny?

So? A loving father talks to his children. ALL his children. And not just in little whispers that you could mistake for your own imagination. He doesn’t choose favorites. He doesn’t love one more than another.

IF God is a loving father, he would do what I said above and previously. He hasn’t. So he’s not a loving father. Cold and indifferent, perhaps. But no religion really believes that, so I don’t see a need to try and believe in such a God.

Jesus hijacks all the TV stations in the world and then simultaneously steps through everyone’s television to tell them, “By the way, I’m God. Worship me.” Most people would probably go, “Wow, would you look at that? Turns out Jesus is God afterall! I better hightail it to mass, pronto!” They’d go to mass for a while and then eventually go back to their old ways of acting, more or less, but some of them would become saints… sorta. Because for them, it’s not so much an act of faith that Jesus is God and that he Loves us but a recognition of the obvious, like that the Moon is a big rock orbiting the Earth, or that water is wet, and God doesn’t want that.

And why would God not want that?

Alternately, Jesus could just implant certainty into our heads (hypothetically, at least; I don’t know if this is really possible), but then we really wouldn’t have free choice in the matter, as we wouldn’t get to choose whether we believed or not.

Here, let me try another angle: let’s say that you’re in love with someone, and that someone isn’t sure whether or not they want to stay with you. Your very presence makes them want to be with you, and you’re an all-around great guy, but they aren’t so sure in general all the same. Now you love them, so obviously you’ll try to convince them to stay with you, but at the same time, they have to choose you as well, and it makes them hard to make an objective choice when you’re sitting there hugging them. So, do you constantly shower them with affection, or do you give them a little space?

The person I love shouldn’t wonder if I exist or not.

 

[teadough]

False. I lack belief in God and yet I feel compelled to defend my standpoint.

Let me put it this way. People talk about a thing called Big Foot that lives out in the woods. I don’t. The only reason I mention it here is for the sake of it, otherwise there is absolutely no reason for me to defend how I feel about it. Why? because I don’t feel compelled to so. What’s the point? The difference between you and I is the fact that you will get in debates about God till the day you die and I will never try to debate the non-existence of Big Foot.

 

[BlaineTog]

If we continue to multiply at the rate we’re multiplying now, we’re going to have to deal with the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation, as you know, is when an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In this case, the organism is the human being, and the habitat is the planet earth. Have we met that already? Probably not. But what about in a hundred years? What about in a thousand years? Human being’s sexual desires won’t change.

No, but our technologies do. The reason our population is exploding is because our technology can sustain a lot more people than we currently have. It will level off eventually, or will will improve our technologies.

Contraception provides an opportunity for human beings to continue to experience sexual intercourse.

I guess that’s really my point: according to Catholic sexual theology, no it doesn’t. It allows two people to essentially masturbate with each other. It turns something that is supposed to bring them together into a mockery and a lie, and additionally shows a distinctive lack of faith in God.

Right. “Natural family planning” is the buzz word, right?

Buzz word or not, it’s still true.

I don’t think it makes the sex act a lie. And the “two becoming one” idea is a metaphor. It doesn’t actually happen literally, of course. You could say “two create one” - that would make sense.

Actually, it does literally happen. Not in the sense that your bodies suddenly flow into each other and you become a hideous amalgamation of limbs, but in the spiritual sense. Obviously if you don’t believe in the soul, you would disagree, but Catholic sexual theology does believe in the soul.

I don’t believe in sacraments. I don’t believe in grace or God. And I don’t think two people are literally unified into one. They may feel that way, but it doesn’t actually happen. It’s a good metaphor, and one that should be used, but it’s still just a metaphor.

Ok. But that means you disagree with Catholic sexual theology’s premises rather than having a problem with the logic of the whole thing.

So? A loving father talks to his children. ALL his children. And not just in little whispers that you could mistake for your own imagination. He doesn’t choose favorites. He doesn’t love one more than another.

Who said he loves one more than another? We all have different parts to play, in the same way that one sibling might become a doctor, another a lawyer, and a third a social worker, and as a result, God has to act accordingly.

For some of us, finding faith in God is the extent of our story, and that is a very beautiful story. Others have a destiny to be martyred, or to become really good insurance salesmen, or whatever.

IF God is a loving father, he would do what I said above and previously. He hasn’t. So he’s not a loving father.

See, that’s an ultimatum, albeit not phrased like one. It’s your way or the high way. God can’t do it your way anymore than a father can give his kids ice cream for every meal. They may want it, they may demand it, they may think it’s what he would do if he loved them, but that doesn’t mean he should do it.

God’s very presence is like ice cream. We can’t have it all the time here.

And why would God not want that?

It’s a lesser good. And God wants the best for us.

The person I love shouldn’t wonder if I exist or not.

Well, by and large, people don’t, but that’s beside the point. Immutable knowledge of his existence itself is to make him continually present.

 

[c659smith]

If we continue to multiply at the rate we’re multiplying now, we’re going to have to deal with the problem of overpopulation. Overpopulation, as you know, is when an organism’s numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In this case, the organism is the human being, and the habitat is the planet earth. Have we met that already? Probably not. But what about in a hundred years? What about in a thousand years? Human being’s sexual desires won’t change. Contraception provides an opportunity for human beings to continue to experience sexual intercourse. If families only want to have one or two children, but also want to have sex, contraception seems like a perfectly acceptable way to make that happen.

***Have you taken a drive around the United States lately you can go hundreds of miles without seeing a structure or town. The cities are crowded because that is the way we wish to live. But the United States could increase 10 fold and still be quite empty in relationship to human life.

But the awful trend toward killing in this country in reference to abortion makes sure that does not happen. 50,000,000 babies killed in the womb since Roe vs Wade. A whole generation.
I do not think we would have a problem with Social Security in this country if even half of those babies were not murdered.

We are an aging society and as such if this continues will be where the rest of the great societies have gone (into extinction***)

Right. “Natural family planning” is the buzz word, right?

I don’t think it makes the sex act a lie. And the “two becoming one” idea is a metaphor. It doesn’t actually happen literally, of course. You could say “two create one” - that would make sense.

I don’t believe in sacraments. I don’t believe in grace or God. And I don’t think two people are literally unified into one. They may feel that way, but it doesn’t actually happen. It’s a good metaphor, and one that should be used, but it’s still just a metaphor.

Do you believe in marriage between a man and woman only?

So? A loving father talks to his children. ALL his children. And not just in little whispers that you could mistake for your own imagination. He doesn’t choose favorites. He doesn’t love one more than another.

IF God is a loving father, he would do what I said above and previously. He hasn’t. So he’s not a loving father. Cold and indifferent, perhaps. But no religion really believes that, so I don’t see a need to try and believe in such a God.

And why would God not want that?

The person I love shouldn’t wonder if I exist or not.

 

[Exalt]

No, but our technologies do. The reason our population is exploding is because our technology can sustain a lot more people than we currently have. It will level off eventually, or will will improve our technologies.

I guess that’s really my point: according to Catholic sexual theology, no it doesn’t. It allows two people to essentially masturbate with each other. It turns something that is supposed to bring them together into a mockery and a lie, and additionally shows a distinctive lack of faith in God.

I think mutual masturbation can be a very positive experience, as a side note. Vaginal intercourse is great (though I havn’t experienced it myself, and don’t really have the desire to, being gay and all), but I think other forms of sexual expression are very bonding.

Actually, it does literally happen. Not in the sense that your bodies suddenly flow into each other and you become a hideous amalgamation of limbs, but in the spiritual sense. Obviously if you don’t believe in the soul, you would disagree, but Catholic sexual theology does believe in the soul.

So if the ejaculatory fluid doesn’t encouter the vagina in sexual intercourse, the souls don’t bond? Or if they do, but the woman is on Birth Control, they don’t bond either?

And you’re right, I don’t believe in the soul. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think sex is a “bonding” experience. It certianly is. Just not in the supernatural-literal way.

Who said he loves one more than another?

Which father loves his children more?

Father A: He spends all his spare time with his children. He gives them what they need, and disciplines them when neccessary. He is warm, yet firm.

Father B: He spends very little or no time with his children, but is not busy and lives close enough to visit if he chose to. He wrote one letter, it was before his children were even born, and wasn’t even written by him. It was written by a friend of his.

See, that’s an ultimatum, albeit not phrased like one. It’s your way or the high way. God can’t do it your way anymore than a father can give his kids ice cream for every meal. They may want it, they may demand it, they may think it’s what he would do if he loved them, but that doesn’t mean he should do it.

God’s very presence is like ice cream. We can’t have it all the time here.

See, that’s what I disagree with and is the crux of why I don’t believe in a personal, loving God. You Christians think God’s presence is *so *precious and rare. That’s why you guys flock to marian apparition sites, and crave stories about miracles, or hope that Amazon packages arriving early are a sign from God that things are okay.

But in reality, those are just tiny morsels. You don’t ask for big miracles or clear communication because it’s against God’s will - you don’t ask because you know he won’t respond in a convincing way. In fact, that’s probably why that “Don’t Test God” rule is there. It’s to protect people from wanting God to be obvious and being terribly disappointed because of the reality: There is no God.

It’s a lesser good. And God wants the best for us.

I have a friend, Patrick, whose parents are divorced. When he was very young, before he can remember anything, his Dad walked out on him and his mom. His mom raised him alone, and he’s 18 now. He grew up without a father.

God has done the same thing to you. And to me. He was around a long time ago, and he’s gone now. That is *not *the best for us.

You *tell *yourself that it’s the best for you because it *has *to be. If Patrick absolutely believed his father loved him very much and wanted the best for him, he would believe that his father loved him even though all evidence pointed to the contrary.

But what’s real? Does Patrick’s Dad really love him? Does God really love you? I don’t think so. I don’t think a *loving *God exists. Saying that he does and that it’s part of some greater good is like telling my friend Patrick that his deadbeat dad actually cares about him. It would be a lie. Comforting, sure, but a lie nonetheless. Better to admit the truth and move on.

 

[Exalt]

Have you taken a drive around the United States lately you can go hundreds of miles without seeing a structure or town. The cities are crowded because that is the way we wish to live. But the United States could increase 10 fold and still be quite empty in relationship to human life.

But the awful trend toward killing in this country in reference to abortion makes sure that does not happen. 50,000,000 babies killed in the womb since Roe vs Wade. A whole generation.
I do not think we would have a problem with Social Security in this country if even half of those babies were not murdered.

We are an aging society and as such if this continues will be where the rest of the great societies have gone (into extinction)

Is that because of Divine Retribution?

Because I don’t think God cares enough, if he exists.

**
Do you believe in marriage between a man and woman only?

Shrug I havn’t really thought about it. Marriage appears to be a religious thing. Personally? I think two men or two women can be in life long union with eachother and raise children. Is that marriage? If so, then sure. I have no problem with it.**

 

[justinthemartyr]

Exalt, you may have missed this concerning praying to your cat, as opposed to God.

here you go.

You state

" if I were to pray to my cat, my cat is more likely to answer my prayer than God"

This statement makes no sense if you do not believe in God and therefore have not prayed, truly prayed to God.

Someone once said that

“the only scoffers at prayer, are the one’s who have not tried it enough”

Without actually giving prayer a chance and praying and looking for the actual result of that prayer, you have no frame of reference.

What you are saying is that if you were trapped in a forest with a tree fallen on your leg and you cannot get out, and no one is within many many miles of you, that you would be more likely to ask your cat, who is at home and totally unaware of your present circumstances, to help you, and that your cat would somehow pick up the phone and call for help for you. This is truly impossible. First off, a cat, even if you were in your home with it, could not help you, not in any way, except the possibility that you might kill your cat and eat it for nourishment until help arrived. this fact is because God gave us reign over animals.

Secondly, your cat cannot understand your needs. Yes, your cat may be somewhat kind at times and even seem loving, but it is only the insticts of that cat which make it so. Animals only work on instinct, not intillect as we have, where we can choose whom we love. you could give that cat to ANYONE and it would behave in the same manner when treated similarly as you treat it. Humans are far different from this since they can choose whom they love, and this love is entirely different from the “love” you deem that your cat has. If your cat loved you in the same way as a human can, you would try to marry your cat and not need a man for anything. It is intuitive to want to be with another human being because a cat cannot fulfil the needs of a human in the truest sense. You will most likely find that no man(or woman) can truly fill all your innermost needs, that will prove itself over time. this is where God comes into the picture.
I like to call it the “option reduction process”. After you have found everything on this earth wanting, (money, sex, men, women, cats, cars, nature) you will still have this most inexhaustible desire for something deeper and your innermost being will long for it. Nothing else will quench this thirst for something more, something real, and not just human in nature, something far beyond that, which you cannot explain.

This was my experience. Everything else in the options was temporal at best, only God gave me enduring love, the kind of love that if I had to be in an 8x8 cell by myself the rest of my life, it would be okay.

It is a fearful thing to actually take the leap of faith and pray, and risking that if God does come to you through this prayer in a most powerful way, that you may have to actually give something up that you want. You personally as an individual may have to actually sacrifice something you selfishly desire, in order to be happier, yet you cannot yet see how you can be happier, so you do not do it, even though you are no where near as happy as you could be. To be free, truly free, free from self and empowered beyond imagination by the creator of the universe. it is an amazing thing that I pray you one day will have enough pain to experience.

peace to you, Justin

---

 

[Exalt]

Exalt, you may have missed this concerning praying to your cat, as opposed to God.

here you go.

You state

" if I were to pray to my cat, my cat is more likely to answer my prayer than God"

This statement makes no sense if you do not believe in God and therefore have not prayed, truly prayed to God.

I did answer this question. I used to be a hardcore conservative Catholic who believed in God and prayed to him quite sincerely.

 

[BlaineTog]

I think mutual masturbation can be a very positive experience, as a side note. Vaginal intercourse is great (though I havn’t experienced it myself, and don’t really have the desire to, being gay and all), but I think other forms of sexual expression are very bonding.

Fair enough, but the reasons why they are perverse under Catholic sexual theology are clear and necessary conclusions.

So if the ejaculatory fluid doesn’t encouter the vagina in sexual intercourse, the souls don’t bond? Or if they do, but the woman is on Birth Control, they don’t bond either?

More or less, though it isn’t quite so physically-based as that.

And you’re right, I don’t believe in the soul. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think sex is a “bonding” experience. It certianly is. Just not in the supernatural-literal way.

Obviously sex is psychologically bonding. The Catholic contention is that it goes beyond that.

*Which father loves his children more?

Father A: He spends all his spare time with his children. He gives them what they need, and disciplines them when neccessary. He is warm, yet firm.

Father B: He spends very little or no time with his children, but is not busy and lives close enough to visit if he chose to. He wrote one letter, it was before his children were even born, and wasn’t even written by him. It was written by a friend of his.*

Who knows? Maybe Father B is a drug addict and he doesn’t want to involve his kids. But the analogies break down when you overly anthropomorphize God, because God is much different from humans. For one thing, he’s always there, even if not overtly. Our relationship with God is more than just father-son, but also husband-wife, master-servant, creator-creature, friend-friend, sergeant-private, and any of a number of others. Each analogy is flawed, but together they help us understand God. The father-son analogy, for example, is a little rickety on this point, but the husband-wife analogy works much better here (if you’ll notice, you ignored me entirely on this point, which seems to be a sign that you didn’t want to try to refute it, though obviously I can’t be sure).

My point isn’t to convince you. My point is to convince you that what I’m saying isn’t pure lunacy, that there’s a reasoning behind the Christian answer to the problem of pain.

*See, that’s what I disagree with and is the crux of why I don’t believe in a personal, loving God. You Christians think God’s presence is *so **precious and rare.

Well, wouldn’t it be precious?

That’s why you guys flock to marian apparition sites, and crave stories about miracles, or hope that Amazon packages arriving early are a sign from God that things are okay.

Or possibly because we think that that’s the truth?

But in reality, those are just tiny morsels. You don’t ask for big miracles or clear communication because it’s against God’s will - you don’t ask because you know he won’t respond in a convincing way.

Uh, no. Speaking for myself, I don’t ask for flashy, clear communication because I don’t want it. Oh sure, if it were a simple matter of preference, I’d take a spiritual experience (even had one a few weeks ago, though I didn’t ask for it), but I don’t particularly doubt God, so all it would really do is make me shape up – for a bit, before I started slipping.

And it’s not necessarily against God’s will to pray for a spiritual experience; you just have to be ready to accept that you probably won’t get one, because you probably won’t need one. To demand one, on the other hand, is absurdly prideful; you’re closing yourself off from it even as you try to force God’s hand.

In fact, that’s probably why that “Don’t Test God” rule is there. It’s to protect people from wanting God to be obvious and being terribly disappointed because of the reality: There is no God.

Or because it fits logically into the system as a necessary, coherent conclusion. I generally try to avoid guessing other’s motives because it’s so presumptuous and usually wrong.

*God has done the same thing to you. And to me. He was around a long time ago, and he’s gone now. That is *not **the best for us.

Not only did God never leave, he’s there with you right now! Jesus came and went, though he still pops in from time to time, but the Holy Spirit is everywhere always. And yes, this is best for us. (See? I can make declarative statements too!)

*You *tell **yourself that it’s the best for you because it *has *to be. If Patrick absolutely believed his father loved him very much and wanted the best for him, he would believe that his father loved him even though all evidence pointed to the contrary.

There’s probably some of that. But the belief that there is no God is comforting as well, isn’t it? It at least means we aren’t being governed by some sort of cosmic sadist, and it means there’s no standard against which you have to compare yourself. I’m sure that all reasonable beliefs have some sort of secondary, practical allure to them, but that doesn’t mean they’re untrue. That 1 + 1 = 2, and always =2, is very convenient when you’re doing your taxes, for example, but that it is convenient doesn’t mean it’s pure escapism, much less untrue.

 

[Exalt]

Who knows? Maybe Father B is a drug addict and he doesn’t want to involve his kids.

Maybe God is a drug addict and doesn’t want to involve us?

But the analogies break down when you overly anthropomorphize God, because God is much different from humans. For one thing, he’s always there, even if not overtly. Our relationship with God is more than just father-son, but also husband-wife, master-servant, creator-creature, friend-friend, sergeant-private, and any of a number of others.

*All *of those relationships are *faaar *more personal than God’s supposed relationship with human beings in the here-and-now. When’s the last time God took you out for icecream, like a father would for his son after a bad day at school? Whens the last time God kissed you, like a husband would with his wife? When’s the last time God played ball with you, like a master would with his dog? When’s the last time you and God went to a bar for drinks, like two friends would? When’s the last time God told you to drop and give you fifty pushups, like a sergeant might do to an underling?

What has *God *done for you? Nothing that couldn’t be attributed to random chance or your imagination. A dog, a husband, a superior officer in the army, a father - all those are far closer relationships than man and God.

Each analogy is flawed, but together they help us understand God. The father-son analogy, for example, is a little rickety on this point, but the husband-wife analogy works much better here (if you’ll notice, you ignored me entirely on this point, which seems to be a sign that you didn’t want to try to refute it, though obviously I can’t be sure).

I’m sorry I missed it. Was it the one about the date and too much space?

My point isn’t to convince you. My point is to convince you that what I’m saying isn’t pure lunacy, that there’s a reasoning behind the Christian answer to the problem of pain.

I have looked into the problem of pain and the problem of evil - the only sane Christian answer I’ve encountered so far is “I don’t know.”

Well, wouldn’t it be precious?

It’s precious in large part because it’s rare.

Uh, no. Speaking for myself, I don’t ask for flashy, clear communication because I don’t want it. Oh sure, if it were a simple matter of preference, I’d take a spiritual experience (even had one a few weeks ago, though I didn’t ask for it), but I don’t particularly doubt God, so all it would really do is make me shape up – for a bit, before I started slipping.

And it’s not necessarily against God’s will to pray for a spiritual experience; you just have to be ready to accept that you probably won’t get one, because you probably won’t need one. To demand one, on the other hand, is absurdly prideful; you’re closing yourself off from it even as you try to force God’s hand.

Why shouldn’t I demand it?

Why shouldn’t my friend Patrick (the son of a deadbeat dad, if you remember) demand contact with his father? It’s only natural of a son to his father. Or a friend to his friend. Or a private to his superior officer. Or a husband to his wife.

 

[Righteousone]

Everything based on anything related to “God’s plan”. Which pretty much throws Catholic teaching on sexuality out the door.

Asking God to communicate with people isn’t asking very much. It’s like a child asking his dad to sit down and have a chat.

The thing is, people talk to God all the time. And what does God give us?

Crying statues.

How can you even say this about God “What does God give us?”. He’s given you life. So many are worse off than you. You should be thanking Him on your knees. But in time you will…
BTW, crying statues, at least the miracles that have been documented are signs that God does exist.

 

[Skavau]

teadough:

Let me put it this way. People talk about a thing called Big Foot that lives out in the woods. I don’t. The only reason I mention it here is for the sake of it, otherwise there is absolutely no reason for me to defend how I feel about it. Why? because I don’t feel compelled to so. What’s the point? The difference between you and I is the fact that you will get in debates about God till the day you die and I will never try to debate the non-existence of Big Foot.

First of all, most of my posts are defensive.

Second of all, you don’t debate about ‘Big Foot’ because most people do not believe in it, consider it with any value or tell you that you should believe in it. This is not the case with God.
Self-Righteousone:

How can you even say this about God “What does God give us?”. He’s given you life. So many are worse off than you. You should be thanking Him on your knees. But in time you will…

Fear! Fear! Fear!

 

[Righteousone]

First of all, most of my posts are defensive.

Second of all, you don’t debate about ‘Big Foot’ because most people do not believe in it, consider it with any value or tell you that you should believe in it. This is not the case with God.

Fear! Fear! Fear!

Why do you keep calling me “Self” Righteous? It is just Rightesousone…:banghead:

 

[teadough]

#57 Today, 10:14 am
Skavau

Second of all, you don’t debate about ‘Big Foot’ because most people do not believe in it, consider it with any value or tell you that you should believe in it. This is not the case with God

But you stated you had a “lack of belief” in God,right? If that were true there would be no reason to debate such a silly notion. Same with what you said about Big Foot. I am glad we can agree:thumbsup:
I guess then we wan’t hear much from you again. Take care my friend. Happy trails and may God Bless your path.

 

[Skavau]

#57 Today, 10:14 am
Skavau

But you stated you had a “lack of belief” in God,right? If that were true there would be no reason to debate such a silly notion. Same with what you said about Big Foot. I am glad we can agree:thumbsup:

Eh?

Did you not read what you quoted? People don’t talk about Big Foot, people don’t generally believe in Big Foot and nor do people try to tell you to believe in Big Foot.

This is not the same with God. People do talk about God. People do believe in God and people do try and get me (and others) to believe in God. It has a rather lot more importance than Big Foot because of that.

Also some people that do not believe in God like to talk about God because they find it interesting.