Beards and Gay Marriage

[PRmerger]

First off, do you mean edges when you say angles? There are plenty of angles, at least the way I think of them, in a circle.

I will amend the above to: right angles.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The way I have aways seen it is that an assertion of a fact like “it is raining outside” is not an opinion. At least not the way I think of it. This is my definition of opinion=“belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge, or a generally held view”, but I acknowledge that you may be using a different definition. Also sense we are going over defs, subjective=" based on feelings or opinions rather than facts", facts=“something that truly exists or the truth value is known”.

This whole schema assumes that we have access to facts. But the only way we have access to facts is through beliefs – i.e. opinions. Even sensory “knowledge” is just a set of beliefs that we believe are really true. I think we often genuinely know things when our beliefs are true, but ALL of our knowledge is subjective, insofar as facts do not ever directly impose themselves objectively upon our consciousness.

An opinion could be that a premise is false. Unless you want to say that when I have an opinion that something is false what I really have is premise, about a falsehood, that is true or I believe to be true. I would say that your view on this subject is convoluted, but not completely wrong.

I am espousing the mainstream views among professional philosophers. Perhaps they are all wrong, and you are right.

If I just came in from the outside and said “it was raining outside” wouldn’t you say that I am trying to impart knowledge to you. What if I came from outside and said “I think it was raining outside” wouldn’t you ask “what is wrong with you that you do not know wether it is raining since you just came in” or you would assume some sort of sarcastic joke. But in either or any of the cases I presented you would not think I was asserting an opinion about the weather. If you are trying to make a deeper epistemological claim right now fine just tell me but I am assuming that you are not.

You are asserting an opinion, either way. If your opinion was justified by your senses and if it really is raining, then you have both an opinion and a piece of knowledge. If you’re wrong, then it is merely a false opinion.

An asserted proposition of a fact is not the same as an asserted proposition of a opinion. You can have a opinion about or on that fact but that is a different subject. If I assert that H2O is water (a tautology I know) I am not asserting my opinion that H2O is water, am I?

(1) “H2O is water” is not a tautology. A necessary truth, yes, but not a tautology.
(2) And yes, you are asserting your opinion. You would be asserting an opinion even if you said “1+1=2”. But not a “mere” opinion.

Just your opinion though is not a objective statement/assertion. There is a huge difference in, to put it in Platonic terms, objective knowledge, subjective knowledge, and opinion. Maybe this will help the way I think of opinions is that their truth values are unknown but you believe them to be true or false.

Plato draws a distinction between objects of opinion and objects of knowledge. He does not think there is such a thing as subjective knowledge. He makes the sharp distinction between opinion and knowledge because he wants to say that there is no knowledge of the sensory world. His distinction is uncommon, but perhaps you would support it?

 

[PRmerger]

But I think there is also such a thing as valid guilt. When a serial killer feels bad after killing someone, that’s valid. When a doctor feels bad about doing a surgery while drunk, that’s valid. And yes, when a boy feels bad about masturbating, that’s valid guilt. Often times, the guilt is exacerbated by false teachings about sin (or by parental shamings), but there is – underneath it all – a very true and real guilt there. This guilt tells us that what we did is wrong, and we should stop.

Indeed.

Just as there’s also a thing as valid pain. Pain can tell us that we should stop doing something that’s bad (touching a hot pan).

Pain for its own sake, just like pathologic guilt, well, that’s unnecessary.

But guilt, like pain, is a necessary entity for the human person.

And I thank God that we have these qualities!

 

[Bradski]

I know exactly how that feels, and I know exactly how it feels to feel that way in response to actions related to homosexuality. Perhaps you are forgetting that I’ve dealt with this myself.

My apologies if I have forgotten. I bounce around a few forums and I haven’t been here for a while. There is a lot of white noise and maybe I haven’t been paying as much attention as I should.

IIt’s certainly not true that all Christians who oppose homosexual activity want gayness not to be talked about. There are an increasing number of people in the Church who call themselves “gay and celibate”.

True. And, unfortunately, I will have to leave it there for a few weeks. I am off overseas tomorrow and internet connection will be limited. I would love to keep the conversation going - you have a lot that’s worth listening to. If you (and others) don’t mind I may pick up this thread in a few weeks if there’s anything worthwhile I can offer.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If you (and others) don’t mind I may pick up this thread in a few weeks if there’s anything worthwhile I can offer.

Have a safe trip.

Peace

 

[PRmerger]

.It’s just your opinion that a square cannot be a circle it’s not like it is a priori knowledge or whatever

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure you have felt guilty about something. And that was invariably because you felt you were knowingly doing something that you were convinced was wrong. The act doesn’t itself have to be wrong. You just need to believe it to be so. So imagine if you are told that what you are actually feeling is wrong. Maybe if you were strong willed enough you could stop drinking or masturbating or whatever was causing your guilty feelings. That would assuage your guilt. You might even feel a little righteous. But what happens when you can’t stop thinking about something that makes you feel guilty. It’s not something you can prevent. If you have been convinced it’s wrong, then that debilitating feeling of guilt is there with you at all times. How do you think that feels?

I know exactly how that feels, and I know exactly how it feels to feel that way in response to actions related to homosexuality. Perhaps you are forgetting that I’ve dealt with this myself. At any rate, yes, I agree that some amount of the guilt and shame is there because people are badly Catechized – for example, because people grow up thinking that merely being gay is wrong.

My apologies if I have forgotten.

Just to expand the supposition: all of us “know exactly how that feels”, where “that” means: being told that a behavior we want to do is wrong.

If the behavior is, in fact, wrong, then we ought to feel bad.

The question, of course, lies in whether homosexual activity is indeed wrong. If it is, then the inclination to do it ought to make us feel bad. Just like the inclination to cheat on our spouse ought to make us feel bad. Or the inclination to run someone over who is driving too slowly. Or the inclination to lay in the sun and fry one’s skin. Or…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My apologies if I have forgotten. I bounce around a few forums and I haven’t been here for a while. There is a lot of white noise and maybe I haven’t been paying as much attention as I should.

True. And, unfortunately, I will have to leave it there for a few weeks. I am off overseas tomorrow and internet connection will be limited. I would love to keep the conversation going - you have a lot that’s worth listening to. If you (and others) don’t mind I may pick up this thread in a few weeks if there’s anything worthwhile I can offer.

Well, it’s been a pleasure to talk with you, and I’d be glad to pick it up in a few weeks. Have a great trip!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Just to expand the supposition: all of us “know exactly how that feels”, where “that” means: being told that a behavior we want to do is wrong.

If the behavior is, in fact, wrong, then we ought to feel bad.

The question, of course, lies in whether homosexual activity is indeed wrong. If it is, then the inclination to do it ought to make us feel bad. Just like the inclination to cheat on our spouse ought to make us feel bad. Or the inclination to run someone over who is driving too slowly. Or the inclination to lay in the sun and fry one’s skin. Or…

You moved almost imperceptibly from behavior to inclination there. Personally, I don’t think that inclinations (however evil their objects) should make us feel bad – I think that falls under that wonderful term you used, “pathological guilt”. I think we should recognize these inclinations in ourselves, recognize that God loves us despite these inclinations, and ask for grace to resist the sinful objects of the inclinations.

(Note: the object of an inclination is always an action, not a person. One may be inclined “to lust after Miley Cyrus” but one may not be inclined “to Miley Cyrus.” Or, at the very least, the latter inclination would not be sinful, since all people are made in the image of God.)

So if gay boys and girls feel guilty – as I did – for merely being attracted to people of the same sex, that is misplaced guilt. If they feel guilty for looking at porn or for non-marital sexual acts, that is valid guilt.

 

[PRmerger]

You moved almost imperceptibly from behavior to inclination there. Personally, I don’t think that inclinations (however evil their objects) should make us feel bad –

I think if we don’t feel bad about the feeling that we want to do something, then we will be more positioned to ignore that voice that tells us this is a bad thing to indulge in.

 

[PRmerger]

So if gay boys and girls feel guilty – as I did – for merely being attracted to people of the same sex, that is misplaced guilt. If they feel guilty for looking at porn or for non-marital sexual acts, that is valid guilt.

If I have the inclination to run over a person for driving too slowly, or for cutting me off, then I ought to feel bad about this inclination.

You don’t think so?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But if you suffer psychological trauma, that occurs in the brain. Entirely. The long-term harm shown by studies of child abuse victims is psychological.

This is not a field I’ve ever had the stomach to delve into, but I would imagine that any physical damage to the actual genitalia would heal relatively quickly and be a relatively trivial part of the harm involved.

Emphasis added. Does that bit not highlight that the problem here was not, in fact, physically the genitalia? but the Mind?

You don’t seem to be hearing me. All psychological trauma is caused, right? Suppose that we call the cause of a case of psychological trauma “abuse”. Then, the question arises, “Why did this particular type of action (say, a fondling of the genitals) produce psychological trauma – i.e. why is it abuse?”

You have said that the genitals are not special in any moral way. It would seem that your position implies, however, that abuse would occur just as often by a fondling of the fingernails as a fondling of the genitals. But we observe exactly the opposite. You are right that, sometimes, abuse occurs by contact with parts of the body that are not intrinsically sexual. But this is the exception, not the rule. Usually abuse occurs through contact (tactile or visual) with the genitals, or through words about the genitals.

Sure, hormones associated with the sexual glands are important, and the import of the genitalia to the psyche likewise, but it is the brain that is the central player in this tragedy.

Here you are admitting my point, that the genitalia and the mind have a more intimate connection than the mind’s connection with other parts of the body. This connection is why VICTIMS of sexual abuse experience guilt. The pleasure that abuse incurs is welcome to the victim, even if the abuse itself is not. If the use of a penis or a vagina was subject to no different standard than the use of other organs, we would not expect this guilt, and we would not observe this intimate connection between mind and genitals.

Also, commiserations. I hope it turned out OK in the end.

Thanks. How it turns out is up to me, as with all scars we have from childhood.

Again, when you say “either in themselves or represented through words”, I doubt whether I understand in what way you do not actually agree with me that the harm is in the mind?

Well, let’s just say that the “trauma” is in the mind. As explained above.

Well, it is true that I do not recall seeing that qualification of “tend toward harm” before. For example:

I was speaking loosely at the time. We say loosely that stealing is wrong because it harms the victim, even if (technically) stealing can in individual cases benefit the victim.

Again, if ‘harm’ or ‘tending toward harm’ is extended to cover potential as well as actual harm, and ‘harm’ such as disrespectful actions such as desecrating a grave without anyone seeing, then maybe we agree. But as with many classical consequentialist arguments it seems, to me, to rely on stretching a definition of a word way beyond its usual meaning in order to make a moral system look simple in its premise.

Yes, of course, it involves potential harm, not actual harm (which we can’t predict anyway). And if you want my whole ethical theory, you’ll find that we don’t ethically evaluate actions, but dispositions (virtues and vices). But you probably don’t want to listen to my entire ethical theory.

Doesn’t that just shift the ambiguity from the definition of ‘virtue’ to that of ‘excellent action’.

An excellent action is an action that tends to contribute to goodness in the world: to happiness, to beauty, and to other virtue. (This last point is circular, but not viciously so – it’s circular in the same way that a recursive function is circular.)

How does a bowel movement lead to ‘excellent action’ where a loving (bla bla - you remember this bit?) relationship only does so if it is heterosexual?

Don’t put words in my mouth. Loving relationships between homosexuals are virtuous. I object to one aspect that exists in *some *of these relationships: lust.

I wonder why you can’t just deal with my objection to gay sex as you would deal with a Jew’s objection to pork? I am not imposing my view on anyone, and I am not claiming that gay people can’t truly and authentically love each other. What exactly do you see me doing that is so terribly objectionable?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just like the irresponsible act of single’s sex for pleasure which thinks nothing but of the moment, self serving instant gratification. Which is neglect of the first principle of “for the sake of the children” is then sake of self. Which in effect disregards “all” of us, and we are then, not acting responsible for the greater good of “all” of us. If this is the case, then as I said, we are not even as smart as the animals. All respect is out the window, much to late to think about children, you are not even thinking correctly about yourself, never mind your next victim. That called the “another notch on my belt program”. Then the act itself becomes a medication to the guilt, and through other means also=pleasure chasing, responsibility forsaken.

The self revealing “honesty” is coming to terms with the guilt which is either a beginning of self understanding, or a continued ride chasing pleasure-pain-pleasure-pain.

The single’s sex-heterosexual, has been so desensitized and labeled “normal” as a result, people “think” this our very “normal” behavior, and statistics probably favor this in confusion confirming the behavior in minds not thinking this through obviously. But the truth reveals itself just as your saying when we can honestly get in touch with ourselves.

Its about seeing others as objects, dehumanizing and objectifying. Should be no secret all the rest of vice follows and the escalation easily hits higher levels of rape, murder, wanton behavior continuously confirming itself.

So Circles it is, fascinating conversation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think if we don’t feel bad about the feeling that we want to do something, then we will be more positioned to ignore that voice that tells us this is a bad thing to indulge in.

If I have the inclination to run over a person for driving too slowly, or for cutting me off, then I ought to feel bad about this inclination.

You don’t think so?

No, I don’t. Not at all.

In my own experience, feeling bad about having same-sex attractions made me feel bad about myself and made me feel somehow accursed by God – since I did not choose these attractions. This bad feeling made me more likely to sin. I mean, hey, if you’re guilty without even sinning, why not sin?

But one day, God revealed to me that there was nothing morally wrong with having sinful inclinations. Everyone is tempted. Even Jesus was tempted, and the fact that this word – temptation – applied to Jesus indicates that Jesus was somehow mysteriously inclined toward the objects of his temptation. But surely *Jesus *didn’t need to feel bad for his inclination!

And yes, I think this applies to ALL temptations. A person tempted to rape should not feel bad about himself because of that temptation. This is perfectly consistent with saying that we should pray for God to free us from our temptations.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t. Not at all.

Fair enough.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think we ought to feel bad about wanting to cheat on our spouse, lie on our taxes, run someone over, drink too much.

As far as same sex attraction–I think this does fall into a different category, as it is my opinion that this attraction is beyond an individual’s choice.

So one ought not feel bad about having SSA, but rather in indulging in fantasies about it, and, of course, acting on these attractions.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In my own experience, feeling bad about having same-sex attractions made me feel bad about myself and made me feel somehow accursed by God – since I did not choose these attractions. This bad feeling made me more likely to sin. I mean, hey, if you’re guilty without even sinning, why not sin? .

Right, its temptation which is no different than women and men chasing each other around and continuously given the behavior permission. And once you take a bite of the forbidden fruit, well now you “know”. No-one chose to be tempted., and no-one is omitted from this rule, only the vice differs. Its how we respond to it which is what builds confidence and gives us tools to respond correctly and continue the positive process. Time, helps also.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Right, its temptation which is no different than women and men chasing each other around and continuously given the behavior permission. And once you take a bite of the forbidden fruit, well now you “know”. No-one chose to be tempted., and no-one is omitted from this rule, only the vice differs. Its how we respond to it which is what builds confidence and gives us tools to respond correctly and continue the positive process. Time, helps also.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Fair enough.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. I think we ought to feel bad about wanting to cheat on our spouse, lie on our taxes, run someone over, drink too much.

As far as same sex attraction–I think this does fall into a different category, as it is my opinion that this attraction is beyond an individual’s choice.

So one ought not feel bad about having SSA, but rather in indulging in fantasies about it, and, of course, acting on these attractions.

I appreciate your response, but I would simply point out that your view seems to be just another way to treat SSA as “special”. Other sinners are responsible for their temptations, on your view, but people with SSA aren’t. In my experience, Christians very often want to either say that people with SSA a special sinners or special saints. But we’re not. We’re ordinary people with temptations.

Maybe you’re thinking about this case, though…

Suppose I’ve spent a great deal of my married life looking at porn and fantasizing about women (or men) other than my wife. Then I experience the temptation to cheat on my wife with a woman from work. In that case, it would seem that I AM at least partially responsible for my temptation, which might not have occurred if I hadn’t been sinning the whole time – so I can understand feeling guilty for it. This is why we must repent and be healed of guilt immediately, because then we are absolved of the moral responsibility for our future temptations, even if those temptations arise out of our sin.

I think that this dynamic works the same for all temptations. But some of our temptations are caused by mere concupiscence, or by the sins of other people, are we are not morally responsible for those, so we should not feel guilty for them.

 

[GaryTaylor]

to treat SSA as “special”.

That’s what we don’t want to do, make it unique. Course all aren’t in agreement on this point either. I can’t prove this point from practical experience but reason and logic seem to continue to arrive here.

 

[PRmerger]

I appreciate your response, but I would simply point out that your view seems to be just another way to treat SSA as “special”. Other sinners are responsible for their temptations, on your view, but people with SSA aren’t. In my experience, Christians very often want to either say that people with SSA a special sinners or special saints. But we’re not. We’re ordinary people with temptations.

Maybe you’re thinking about this case, though…

Suppose I’ve spent a great deal of my married life looking at porn and fantasizing about women (or men) other than my wife. Then I experience the temptation to cheat on my wife with a woman from work. In that case, it would seem that I AM at least partially responsible for my temptation, which might not have occurred if I hadn’t been sinning the whole time – so I can understand feeling guilty for it. This is why we must repent and be healed of guilt immediately, because then we are absolved of the moral responsibility for our future temptations, even if those temptations arise out of our sin.

I think that this dynamic works the same for all temptations. But some of our temptations are caused by mere concupiscence, or by the sins of other people, are we are not morally responsible for those, so we should not feel guilty for them.

Very well presented!

I have amended my position and maintain that concupiscence is not something for which we ought to feel guilt.