Ask the materialist...

[Sarpedon]

My position is simple: “infallibility” is nonsensical, since all humans are fallible (able to make errors) and therefore all human groups are fallible, too. Which part would you like to deny?

I fail to see why certain individuals not being able to make certain pronouncements is nonsensical. Humans on their own are certainly fallible, but I see no reason why God could not keep people from doing something He didn’t want them to do. Do you have any evidence that a hypothetical omnipotent deity could not enforce such a restriction?

Infallibility only applies in certain circumstances. I could ask the pope a question privately, and he could be wrong. This is because he is not speaking to the whole church. It also has nothing to do with sin or personal holiness.

Which part is not convincing? That all humans are fallible? Or is the Pope not human?

The pope is a human with certain restrictions placed on him by God.

 

[Sarpedon]

I want to add that infallibility only applies to matters of faith and morals. If you ask the Pope who will win the presidential election, there is no way infallibility could be applied to his response. Even if it is a matter of faith and morals, it is only infallible if it meets the criteria listed above. I could ask the pope a theological question privately or semi-privately and he could be wrong.

 

[ateista]

Again, I am not arguing for solipism, only that atheism undercuts realism (and thus leads to some form of solipism).

Please explain what you mean when you say: atheism undercuts realism. I have no idea where this came from and what it means. And, as usual, some supporting argument would be appreciated.

These experiements operate within the system in question. Therefore, they don’t assure anything. Imagine you are trying to find out if a computer is working correctly. To that end, you run a test on the same computer. This test says that the computer is working correctly. Do you see the problem?

No, they do not. I am not simply an isolated “entity”, I am in constant interaction with my environment.

The environment does not tolerate my possible misconceptions. If I would “believe” that I can walk on water, one experiment would refute my “belief”. And if I could not swim, then I would drown. Since I am still alive, that proves to my satisfaction that my mental image of the environment is substantially correct. There is no need to look any further.

Interesting response. What makes you think your cluster of neurons is any more capable of verifying or disproving these arguments than the monkey’s cluster? How do you know that you are in a position to evaluate the truth of the monkey’s arguments? If we are both ultimately animals, what makes you think that our species is any more capable of arriving at truth than a monkey?

By applying the same criteria as I always do. By appealing to reality. If the monkey’s argument allows a better predicition for the same phenomena, then he is superior (in that respect). That is the beauty of empiricism. When it comes to reality, there is no need too look further, there is no need for authority. Reality is testable, and the “proof of the pudding” is the only method we need.

Now if you wish to introduce another question, and ponder something like the monkey’s “concept of a god” as opposed to the “human concept of a god”, (where empirical verification is impossible), then I will simply leave both of you to “fight it out” among yourselves. Such questions have no significance for me.

Something being said presupposes something to hear it. Imagine a stream of data being sent to a computer. This stream is completely true and is “what matters”, as you said. If this stream is being sent to a computer that is not necessarily designed to draw true conclusions from it, then I will be fairly skeptical of any conclusions drawn from the true data stream.

You talk about information here. I agree that information only makes sense between a sender and a receiver, and both must have the capability of processing the “bits” that carry the information.

 

[ateista]

Humans on their own are certainly fallible, but I see no reason why God could not keep people from doing something He didn’t want them to do. Do you have any evidence that a hypothetical omnipotent deity could not enforce such a restriction?

Well, simple: either God allows us free will or he does not. To “suspend” our fallibility in certain questions is an infringement on our freedom to make mistakes.

You see, this is a perfect example of the inconsistencies of the believers. When I ask why God does not interfere when a rape / murder / torture is about to happen, the believers assert that God does not limit our free will.

Now when I ask about the problem of infallibility, you say that God can “meddle” and suspend our fallen nature.

This kind of “hide and seek” is what I see as a huge problem. If you say that the “free will” of a murderer is “sacred” and God does not interfere, then stick to it. Don’t say that in that case it is proper to allow the victim to suffer - in the name of free will - but in this case God does interfere and that is A-OK. (And then, to add insult to injury, you guys also assert that God is immutable.)

Try to be somewhat consistent, for “God’s sake”. It is extremely frustrating to see the lack of consistency.

Here is an old story for you:
A guy wants to buy a cow, and goes out to the market. He sees one, and asks the seller: “Is the cow pregnant?”. The seller does not know what the buyer wants to hear, so he answers: “If I want it, its pregnant, if I don’t, it’s not”.

I hesitate to use such phrases, but such behavior certainly looks like intellectual dishonesty - anything goes to escape the unpleasant dilemma.

 

[Sarpedon]

To “suspend” our fallibility in certain questions is an infringement on our freedom to make mistakes.

We have to make a distinction between intent and execution. Let’s say a pope wants to sin by teaching heresy. God will prevent the execution of this act, but the intent of the pope is still an act of the will and is sufficient for responsibility.

You see, this is a perfect example of the inconsistencies of the believers. When I ask why God does not interfere when a rape / murder / torture is about to happen, the believers assert that God does not limit our free will.
Now when I ask about the problem of infallibility, you say that God can “meddle” and suspend our fallen nature.

The church is the way that God makes Himself manifest to us now. If the church could teach falsehood, then this would contradict the goodness of God. Contrast this with the crimes you mentioned. They all involve fallen human beings acting on their free will independant of God. Since we have fallen, we are capable of commiting evil, unlike God.

This is the reason why God is willing to limit the effects* of our free will in regards to the church, but not for humanity in general. The church speaks for Christ, so it necessarily follows that it must teach truth. No such condition exists for humanity in general

*It is crucial to make the distinction between free will and the effects of free will. I believe that infallibility only protects against the effects of free will, not free will itself. The pope could make an act of the will to teach heresy, but would be prevented from actually doing so by God. However, the pope still exercised his free will and is responsible for his intent to commit the action, even though he was not able to carry it out.

 

[Sarpedon]

Please explain what you mean when you say: atheism undercuts realism. I have no idea where this came from and what it means. And, as usual, some supporting argument would be appreciated.

Realism means that we interpret reality correctly. Atheism undercuts our assurance of it as explained through EAAN.

Atheists believe that the mind interprets reality correctly. However, the mind is not planned or designed. There is also no evolutionary reason to assume that this property would have been selected. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the mind interprets reality correctly. We simply don’t know either way. If we don’t know that the mind interprets reality correctly, then we can’t be sure of anything, including the god question. Atheism undercuts its own position because if our mind is not designed to form true conclusions, then there is no reason to assume that it does. If God did not exist, then there would be no way of knowing that He did not because we would have no reason to trust our mind.

The same problem exists for theism, but we solve it by having faith that the mind was designed to interpret reality correctly. How would you solve it?

When I have brought up this issue before, you have responded by appealing to experiences of reality that we have. For example, you said that when we put our hand in a fire we feel the pain, which validates our view of reality. However, this whole experience is part of our experience of reality. No one doubts that this experience exists, but the argument questions whether we can know this experience to be true without God.

No, they do not. I am not simply an isolated “entity”, I am in constant interaction with my environment.

You experience your enviroment through your “computer”. Since the computer is in question, you cannot appeal to things experienced through the computer.

The environment does not tolerate my possible misconceptions. If I would “believe” that I can walk on water, one experiment would refute my “belief”. And if I could not swim, then I would drown. Since I am still alive, that proves to my satisfaction that my mental image of the environment is substantially correct. There is no need to look any further.

You are dealing with the reality experience that no one doubts. The question is whether the whole experience is reliable, assuming atheism.

By applying the same criteria as I always do. By appealing to reality. If the monkey’s argument allows a better predicition for the same phenomena, then he is superior (in that respect). That is the beauty of empiricism. When it comes to reality, there is no need too look further, there is no need for authority. Reality is testable, and the “proof of the pudding” is the only method we need.

The only way we can appeal to reality is through our mind. If we don’t know that our mind interprets reality correctly, then we don’t know if we are ultimately appealing to the true reality or not. All we know is that we are appealing to what our minds experience as “reality”. I have assurance of the truth of our reality through faith. Can you provide an assurance?

 

[ateista]

We have to make a distinction between intent and execution. Let’s say a pope wants to sin by teaching heresy. God will prevent the execution of this act, but the intent of the pope is still an act of the will and is sufficient for responsibility.

That is not a distinction, that is the **elimination **of the difference. It is called a “thought-crime” in 1984.

The church is the way that God makes Himself manifest to us now.

The church is just a human institution, nothing more. Composed of human beings, fallible as all of us. I don’t deny that they are mostly very good human beings, who are honest in their intention to do God’s will - **as they imagine it **- but that is not an assurance that their strong conviction actually allows them to “gauge” God’s will.

If the church could teach falsehood, then this would contradict the goodness of God.

The goodness of God is amply contradicted by allowing all the problems he allows to happen. A “Good Shepherd” actually helps his flock in time of need and does not cover up his lack of actual help by some dubious promise in some “afterlife”.

Contrast this with the crimes you mentioned. They all involve fallen human beings acting on their free will independant of God. Since we have fallen, we are capable of commiting evil, unlike God.

Yes, let’s contrast them. Excellent idea.

Suppose the pope realizes what a joke it is to restrict human behavior in the privacy of a bedroom, to prohibit certain consensual behavior which is aimed at expressing the deep love and caring two human beings feel for each other. Perish the thought, right?

Contrast that by preventing the abduction of another human for the sole reason to **degrade, mutilate, torture, rape and kill **that person. No big deal, right?
Tell me, my friend, what kind of value system do you think God has? Because that kind of permission / prevention looks like a very strange set of priorities to me.

*It is crucial to make the distinction between free will and the effects of free will.

Well, then please do that, and do not wash away the difference. Execution of an action should not ne confused with the intent, that is my opinion. You say the exact opposite.

I believe that infallibility only protects against the effects of free will, not free will itself. The pope could make an act of the will to teach heresy, but would be prevented from actually doing so by God. However, the pope still exercised his free will and is responsible for his intent to commit the action, even though he was not able to carry it out.

But you are inconsistent in your beliefs. If the desire to teach “heresy” as you say is still something the pope would be responsible for, then the would-be murderer could be held responsible for his planned murder, even if God prevented it from being carried out.

This was yet another perfect example of inconsistency I was talking about in my previous post.

 

[ateista]

Realism means that we interpret reality correctly.

I certainly accept that definition.

Atheism undercuts our assurance of it as explained through EAAN.

Elaborate, please.

Atheists believe that the mind interprets reality correctly. However, the mind is not planned or designed. There is also no evolutionary reason to assume that this property would have been selected.

Surely this is a joke. Correct assessment of reality has the greatest survival value.

Correctly assessing the presence of a predator, its distance and speed compared to the position of the prey is extremely important to both the predator and prey. It is literally a matter of life and death. If the predator made a mistake in his assessment, he will go hungry. If the prey erred, he will die.

When I have brought up this issue before, you have responded by appealing to experiences of reality that we have. For example, you said that when we put our hand in a fire we feel the pain, which validates our view of reality. However, this whole experience is part of our experience of reality. No one doubts that this experience exists, but the argument questions whether we can know this experience to be true without God.

What reason is there to assume that the absolute necessity for survival is not a sufficient cause?

You experience your enviroment through your “computer”. Since the computer is in question, you cannot appeal to things experienced through the computer.

Yes, I can. Precisely since the continued operation of this “computer” is contingent upon its correct working. If the “computer” makes a mistake in its assessment, reality (experinces) will remind it rather harshly of this fact, even to the point of the elimination of the “computer” from existence. A “dead computer” cannot propagate its “chips”.

The only way we can appeal to reality is through our mind. If we don’t know that our mind interprets reality correctly, then we don’t know if we are ultimately appealing to the true reality or not. All we know is that we are appealing to what our minds experience as “reality”. I have assurance of the truth of our reality through faith. Can you provide an assurance?

Certainly. My existence.

 

[Sarpedon]

That is not a distinction, that is the **elimination **of the difference. It is called a “thought-crime” in 1984.

I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

The church is just a human institution, nothing more. Composed of human beings, fallible as all of us. I don’t deny that they are mostly very good human beings, who are honest in their intention to do God’s will - **as they imagine it **- but that is not an assurance that their strong conviction actually allows them to “gauge” God’s will.

Well, I disagree. You have continually stated things like this without evidence. Using your same logic, I could simply state that God exists and leave it at that.

Strong conviction certainly does not necessarily prove anything. I have never claimed this.

The goodness of God is amply contradicted by allowing all the problems he allows to happen. A “Good Shepherd” actually helps his flock in time of need and does not cover up his lack of actual help by some dubious promise in some “afterlife”.

Since the afterlife is what we are made for, it makes sense that it should be the primary focus of our life and God’s attention.

God does not abandon us in our time of need, at least from an eternal standpoint. Its called grace.

Yes, let’s contrast them. Excellent idea.

Suppose the pope realizes what a joke it is to restrict human behavior in the privacy of a bedroom, to prohibit certain consensual behavior which is aimed at expressing the deep love and caring two human beings feel for each other. Perish the thought, right?

Contrast that by preventing the abduction of another human for the sole reason to **degrade, mutilate, torture, rape and kill **that person. No big deal, right?
Tell me, my friend, what kind of value system do you think God has? Because that kind of permission / prevention looks like a very strange set of priorities to me.

Your first example kind of sets up a diversion that I want to address:

1. Something is either objectively good or evil. Therefore, the said activity is either good or evil. If the pope thinks that something that is objectively evil is good, then this is obviously bad, just like rape and murder. I think you may have meant sarcasm but I wanted to address it just in case.

So we have established that both cases (at least hypothetically) you mentioned are evil. **

 

[ateista]

I don’t quite understand what you are saying.

Simple. You said that the pope may want to teach “heresy” and this “intention” will be judged by God, regardless of the fact that God prevents the pope from carrying it out. That is called “thought-crime” in the novel 1984. The same attitude is declared by Jesus when he said: “He whoever looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart”. (Not a verbatim quote.)

I do not acccept that a desire equals the deed, and no one else does - at least not a rational being.

Well, I disagree. You have continually stated things like this without evidence. Using your same logic, I could simply state that God exists and leave it at that.

You sure could. Though I always attempt to justify my position, though maybe I fail sometimes.

Strong conviction certainly does not necessarily prove anything. I have never claimed this.

Well, then? I merely said that the good intentions of the clergy does not guarantee that they “understand” God’s “value system”.

Since the afterlife is what we are made for, it makes sense that it should be the primary focus of our life and God’s attention.

Ok. So God’s attention is “exhausted” when it comes to such mundane problems as starvation? He does not have time left for sending a little rain? As I said, the picture you paint of God is very confusing. It is not the picture of a “Good Shepherd”.

God does not abandon us in our time of need, at least from an eternal standpoint. Its called grace.

Grace does not feed the hungry. I am asking where is the sign of a loving deity, who does not fix the weather, who does not send rain? It does not require a special “miracle”, does it?

Your first example kind of sets up a diversion that I want to address:

1. Something is either objectively good or evil. Therefore, the said activity is either good or evil. If the pope thinks that something that is objectively evil is good, then this is obviously bad, just like rape and murder. I think you may have meant sarcasm but I wanted to address it just in case.

Explain how can an expression of love be evil. And no, I was not sarcasic at all. I am asking seriously, what kind of thinking (or value system) can declare the mutual expression of love and caring be considered evil?

Let’s reverse your question: “if the pope thinks that something that is objectively good is evil, than that would be obviously bad”. And this is precisely the case here.

So we have established that both cases (at least hypothetically) you mentioned are evil. **
No, we sure did not. You must explain how can love be evil.

 

[davidv]

{snip}

Explain how can an expression of love be evil. And no, I was not sarcasic at all. I am asking seriously, what kind of thinking (or value system) can declare the mutual expression of love and caring be considered evil?

{snip}

No, we sure did not. You must explain how can love be evil.

The underlined sentence cannot explained, because it is based on a false labeling of something as “love” when it really is not.

Love is good, not evil. This an axiom.

 

[ateista]

The underlined sentence cannot explained, because it is based on a false labeling of something as “love” when it really is not.

So how do you define “love”? How do you substantiate that two consenting adults who profess love for each other and who express their love for each other in the way they find most appropriate is “really” not love and it is “evil”?

Use secular arguments only, please. The fact is that we consider murder, torture and rape evil is not because of some Biblical prohibition against them. On the very contrary they are prohibited in the Bible, because they are intrinsically evil.

I intentionally left out all the details, both about the gender of the participants, and the precise way how they express their feelings, because none of that is relevant. (If you so choose, you can break it down to hetero or homosexual partners, to “conventinal” or not so conventional “positions” and “places”. But, please, use only secular arguments.)

Love is good, not evil. This an axiom.

Ok. I agree.

 

[davidv]

So how do you define “love”?

Love = That which is of God.

How do you substantiate that two consenting adults who profess love for each other and who express their love for each other in the way they find most appropriate is “really” not love and it is “evil”?

I substantiate it by noting that the means used to “express” themselve are either intrinsically evil or are being performed in ungodly circumstances.

Use secular arguments only, please.

I’m sorry, but I cannot comply with this request as it restricts the truth.

 

[ateista]

Love = That which is of God.

You could not be more vague, if you wanted to. It is strange that you could define murder, torture and rape in purely secular terms, but you refuse to define “love” in a similar manner.

Well, let me help you. Love is a positive emotion, which should be expressed in actions. There are, of course several kinds and types of love, depending on the people (or other entites) involved. The love one feels toward a spouse is not the same one feels toward his children or his pets. Or the feeling that a pet feels toward his master. You can also look it up here:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love

Love could be based on purely physical attraction, or mutual respect, and many different reasons. Nevertheless, these are all types of love. To say “that which comes from God” is but an attempt to avoid the issue.

Just in case you are unable to define murder, rape and torture, let me help you there, too.

Murder: the intentional taking of another human’s life, against his or her wish.
**
Rape:** to have a forced sexual relationship with someone, against his or her wish.

Torture: the intentional causation of pain to someone against his or her wish.

All of these have one in common: “against his or her wish” - that is why these acts are evil.

I substantiate it by noting that the means used to “express” themselve are either intrinsically evil or are being performed in ungodly circumstances.

Intrinsically evil, eh? Ungodly circumstances? How peculiar. Nothing is intrinsically evil if it is mutually agreed upon.

I’m sorry, but I cannot comply with this request as it restricts the truth.

There is no “truth” in what you say. Intentional vagueness, avoidance of the problem, more like it. Of course you had to shy away from secular arguments, because there are no secular arguments.

 

[davidv]

There is no “truth” in what you say. Intentional vagueness, avoidance of the problem, more like it. Of course you had to shy away from secular arguments, because there are no secular arguments.

If you say so. Have a nice day.

 

[ateista]

If you say so. Have a nice day.

You, too.

 

[Sarpedon]

Simple. You said that the pope may want to teach “heresy” and this “intention” will be judged by God, regardless of the fact that God prevents the pope from carrying it out. That is called “thought-crime” in the novel 1984. The same attitude is declared by Jesus when he said: “He whoever looks at a woman with desire has already committed adultery in his heart”. (Not a verbatim quote.)

I do not acccept that a desire equals the deed, and no one else does - at least not a rational being.

If someone walks into a school with a gun with the professed intent to murder, and is arrested before he can execute his criminal actions, do you think he is responsible?

I am speaking of intent, not desire. Desire is not sinful and we are not responsible for it. If I have the desire to do something bad, I am not responsible for it unless I give in to the desire. For example, homosexual individuals who do not act on their desires are not in sin. They do not choose to have those desires, and they will not be held responsible unless they do choose to act on them. The same goes to unmarried heterosexuals.

Intent is a different matter. If I freely choose to kill somebody but am stopped from doing so, I had still freely chosen to do evil. I still made a concious and informed decision.

Ok. So God’s attention is “exhausted” when it comes to such mundane problems as starvation? He does not have time left for sending a little rain? As I said, the picture you paint of God is very confusing. It is not the picture of a “Good Shepherd”.

Grace does not feed the hungry. I am asking where is the sign of a loving deity, who does not fix the weather, who does not send rain? It does not require a special “miracle”, does it?

There are several key points to understanding the Catholic conception of God. Tell me what you think of these and we can procede from there.

1. We are made for heaven
2. We are free to choose for or against God
3. Any choice for God affects humanity in a positive way, and any choice against God affects humanity in a negative way. Every sin drags down humanity as a whole.
4. God offers us the grace we need to become holy and reach salvation,but we can reject it. Grace is a free gift that can be accepted or rejected.

I know you won’t think that any of these are true, but can you tell me what you think of them hypothetically? If God did exist?

Explain how can an expression of love be evil. And no, I was not sarcasic at all. I am asking seriously, what kind of thinking (or value system) can declare the mutual expression of love and caring be considered evil?

Is it truly loving and caring to expose someone else to the risk of STDs and pregnancy or dependancy? If they truly love each other, why aren’t they married?

You have characterized love as a feeling. This is not the catholic understanding. Love is ultimately an action. There may be a good and holy emotional component to it, and certainly this may be paramount in the casual definition of love, but it is not love itself.

There’s a verse that goes along the lines of “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, so that anyone who believes in him might have eternal life.”
This is love. Not warm fuzzies.

God has designed sexuality to be a selfless expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation and love of children. It is meant to be totally selfless. People who have not given themselves totally to each other are not capable of giving their whole self to the other person. The maritial act is meant to be like a covenant between two people of their total commitment and love for each other. To make the act without actually meaning it is ultimately lying through your actions. You offer a false promise to the other person, and take what you are not entitled to.

Biology actually affirms catholic teaching to some degree. The human body releases bonding hormones (at least in women [otycin sp?], but men probably have something similar that has not been found yet) during the act. This makes an emotional bond to the other person, which I believe God has designed to help couples in their marriage. Breaking up with that person can break the bond and cause emotional problems, especially in future relationships. From a biological standpoint the body is clearly designed to latch on to a specific individual during the act, which supports absolute monogamy as a biological ideal.

No, we sure did not. You must explain how can love be evil.

Love is not evil. The question is: what is love?

 

[Sarpedon]

Surely this is a joke. Correct assessment of reality has the greatest survival value.

The greatest survival value is responding to reality. Not understanding it.

Correctly assessing the presence of a predator, its distance and speed compared to the position of the prey is extremely important to both the predator and prey. It is literally a matter of life and death. If the predator made a mistake in his assessment, he will go hungry. If the prey erred, he will die.

Again, this is a response and not an understanding.

What reason is there to assume that the absolute necessity for survival is not a sufficient cause?

Evolution selects for behavior. If individual 1 reflexively escapes a pursuing snake while thinking that it is escaping from an imaginary robot, and succeeds, while individual 2 knows it is being chased by a snake but fails to escape, evolution will pick individual 1.

Yes, I can. Precisely since the continued operation of this “computer” is contingent upon its correct working. If the “computer” makes a mistake in its assessment, reality (experinces) will remind it rather harshly of this fact, even to the point of the elimination of the “computer” from existence. A “dead computer” cannot propagate its “chips”.

A successfully operating computer does not mean that every code in it is programmed correctly. The vital ones, yes, the less necessary ones, no. Software glitches come to mind. Even so, computers are designed… I would not necessarily trust an undesigned computer.

 

[ateista]

If someone walks into a school with a gun with the professed intent to murder, and is arrested before he can execute his criminal actions, do you think he is responsible?

Responsible for what? Murder? Intent to commit murder? They are not the same, and should never be treated as same.

There are several key points to understanding the Catholic conception of God. Tell me what you think of these and we can procede from there.

1. We are made for heaven
2. We are free to choose for or against God
3. Any choice for God affects humanity in a positive way, and any choice against God affects humanity in a negative way. Every sin drags down humanity as a whole.
4. God offers us the grace we need to become holy and reach salvation,but we can reject it. Grace is a free gift that can be accepted or rejected.

I know you won’t think that any of these are true, but can you tell me what you think of them hypothetically? If God did exist?

Ok, Assuming that there is God:

1. Might be true.
2. Would be true.
3. Absolutely NOT. There is no collective “action” or collective result.
4. I am unable to answer, because “grace” is just as undefined as the “soul”.

Now, after these straightforward answers a few remarks.

If God intended all of us to be in heaven, he would have done it. Therefore God did not intend everyone to be in heaven. If God wanted us to follow his precise guidelines, he would have made them crystal clear - not allow dubious interpretations - especially not by over-aged men, who never experienced sex and therefore are completely unqualified to make decisions about it.

Why don’t you give some credence to God? Why don’t you assume that God knew exactly what he was doing? And while you are at it, why don’t you assume that God is a decent fellow, who did not wish to set “traps” - by making making sex pleasurable and at the same time forbidding its use?

Is it truly loving and caring to expose someone else to the risk of STDs and pregnancy or dependancy? If they truly love each other, why aren’t they married?

I did not say they are not married. I left out all the possible details to allow you to draw conclusions as you see appropriate. They very well may be married and still conduct their mutual love in a forbidden manner.

You have characterized love as a feeling. This is not the catholic understanding. Love is ultimately an action.

An action which is grounded in the feelings. I am really sorry, but you cannot simply redefine “love” just to suit your purposes.

God has designed sexuality to be a selfless expression of love between man and woman and for the procreation and love of children.

And this is the line where you are wrong. One part of sex is indeed procreation. For most of the animals, sex is physically impossible outside the time of estrus.

If God intended procreation to be the sole reason for sex, he would have created us just like the rest of the animal world - and the whole question would be moot. God did not choose that route - not even according to believers. A few species are exempt from the sex == procreation “rule” - humans and some of the great apes.

If you wish to theorize about the role of sexuality, why not use reason?

1. God did not create us to be constrained by the estrus.
2. God did not simply make a mistake.
3. God intended us to use sex even when procreation is unlikely or impossible.
4. No kind of love is “evil”.

Add this up, and result will be inescapable.

It is meant to be totally selfless. People who have not given themselves totally to each other are not capable of giving their whole self to the other person.

Only in the modern times. Humans experimented with all sorts of arrangements since time immemorial. The monogamous relationship is a relatively modern invention.

Biology actually affirms catholic teaching to some degree. The human body releases bonding hormones (at least in women [otycin sp?], but men probably have something similar that has not been found yet) during the act. This makes an emotional bond to the other person, which I believe God has designed to help couples in their marriage. Breaking up with that person can break the bond and cause emotional problems, especially in future relationships. From a biological standpoint the body is clearly designed to latch on to a specific individual during the act, which supports absolute monogamy as a biological ideal.

Biology does not support it. Selection of partners is an inherently error-prone process. Marriages are not “arranged” in heaven. To be locked in an incorrectly selected relationship is MUCH more harmful, than a friendly (or not friendly) divorce. Especially for the children, if any. Also biologically, once we are past the child-bearing age, we simply do not “count”. Yet, the sexual urge does no go away.

Bilogically males are “encouraged” by their hormones to spread their seed as widely as possible. Females, who have been the responsible party for actually raising the children are much more inclided to have steady relationships - at least until the children grow up.

… continued.

 

[ateista]

Love is not evil. The question is: what is love?

Yes. And no kind of relationship where the partners feel mutual attraction (even if you would not call it “love”), and express it in a mutually agreed manner, can be “frowned” upon. Whatever people do in the privacy of their bedroomes is their own business. I adamantly refuse to call God a “peeping Tom”. Even though I do not believe in God, but at least I think that a possible God would not be a pervert.

Now, let’s define “love”:

Let’s posit two scenarios: in both you have two people, who feel mutual affection for each other. In both cases they wow to have a monogamous relationship. In both cases they intend to keep it. In both cases it is impossible for them to procreate. In one case it is a man and a woman, where the woman had a hysterectomy, and the ovaries were also removed. In the other it is two people of the same gender.

You call the relationship between the man and the woman: “love”. What do you call the relationship between the other two people?

Another scenario: keep the man-woman pair in the focus of your analysis. They have absolutely no chance to procreate for the aforementioned reason. Why would God disapprove of these people to express their love (assuming that you “allow” their relationship “loving”) in a manner which is “forbidden” by the church?