For the life of mine... I cannot understand you!

[Spock]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Are we being illogical, Spock?

Also, I don’t know of any Catholics who argue that acts of murder, rape, torture, etc. are justifiable.

 

[Spock]

Also, I don’t know of any Catholics who argue that acts of murder, rape, torture, etc. are justifiable.

Then you never read those threads which deal with the problem of evil… where the posters say that the “greater good” of free will justifies God’s inaction in preventing these acts… And those where others argue that no matter how horrendous some acts may be, God can turn them around and makes something much better from them - which of course justifies their existence. Of course they do not say outright that rapes are justifyable, they just find feeble excuses why these acts are permitted by God.

 

[Langdell]

If you genuinely believe that a loving God exists, then the problem of evil is not much of a problem. At most, it’s an “I don’t completely understand but have faith that God has his reasons” issue.

By the same token, if you have doubts about God’s existence, then the problem of evil can be a major issue.

.

 

[TheLearner]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

I believe Gods love is primarily an unconditional love of giving. His love lies in giving us our very existence, even if we don’t return his love by loving him, following him and worshipping. As humans, we can emulate this love in the kind of love we express and act out sexually: its an act connected with the supreme love of giving another being it’s existence. Just like the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit of Love proceeds, so we can access the inner life of the Trinity in our human sexuality, giving ourselves to each other, and giving life to a new being. But merely “seeking pleasure” is not love; and it is much less an emulation of the Holy Trinity and the love in God and the love he has towards us. Gods motive for creating us was not “pleasure”, but pure charitable and unconditional love - which he gives, even though we can’t possibly deserve it by our own merits (that which doesn’t exist doesn’t deserve anything!) and even if we reject him (like Adam and Eve did). Do you then see, how superficial the idea of love as “seeking pleasure” is, and how far detached it is from the Divine and Eternal Love of God?

 

[Spock]

If you genuinely believe that a loving God exists, then the problem of evil is not much of a problem. At most, it’s an “I don’t completely understand but have faith that God has his reasons” issue.

Yes, I know that this is the traditional position. But from the outside, it is just a cop-out. And it does not explain why should an act of genuine love (expressed in actions) be considered “evil”…

By the same token, if you have doubts about God’s existence, then the problem of evil can be a major issue.

Right on! It certainly is, and there is no rational explanation.

 

[Spock]

I believe Gods love is primarily an unconditional love of giving. His love lies in giving us our very existence, even if we don’t return his love by loving him, following him and worshipping. As humans, we can emulate this love in the kind of love we express and act out sexually: its an act connected with the supreme love of giving another being it’s existence. Just like the Father begets the Son, and the Holy Spirit of Love proceeds, so we can access the inner life of the Trinity in our human sexuality, giving ourselves to each other, and giving life to a new being.

Why? Love between a male and a female, who **cannot **conceive (due to physical deficiency - like a hysterectomy) is not considered “evil”. But even it that case Catholics consider it evil to have extra-vaginal intercourse.

But merely “seeking pleasure” is not love; …

Nonsense. Giving **and **accepting pleasure is an expression of love. I would accept your reasoning if the act would be unilateral. If the aim would only be “accepting” pleasure, it would be selfish. But giving **and **accepting pleasure is mutual. Where is the evil in that? Also the giving and receiving pleasure does not have to be simultaneous. One can give and not receive at a certain time, while one can receive and not give at another time - all these by mutual consensus of the partners involved.

… and it is much less an emulation of the Holy Trinity and the love in God and the love he has towards us. Gods motive for creating us was not “pleasure”, but pure charitable and unconditional love - which he gives, even though we can’t possibly deserve it by our own merits (that which doesn’t exist doesn’t deserve anything!) and even if we reject him (like Adam and Eve did). Do you then see, how superficial the idea of love as “seeking pleasure” is, and how far detached it is from the Divine and Eternal Love of God?

No, I don’t, and even if I did, it would not matter. Also your stipulation that creation is the sign of love makes no sense. One cannot “love” a nonexistent being. At the very least the being must exist before one can love it.

 

[geometer]

Homosexuality can make you physically ill

If sin is to err or miss the mark, then that would seem to be the case in terms of the health of gays…

 

[Areopagite]

Mr. Spock you pose some good questions with a kind of intellectual voracity that I respect. These issues that you have brought up have indeed been muddied up by many confused in recent history by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I too wondered the exact same things you wondered, and it took quite a while to sort out through all the claims that Catholics made on these issues. I hope I can beam some shaft of light on this issue.

First of all…

If you genuinely believe that a loving God exists, then the problem of evil is not much of a problem. At most, it’s an “I don’t completely understand but have faith that God has his reasons” issue.

While what you say is true, this can be easily misunderstood into the Protestant notion of “Reason and faith contradict each other.” There is a big difference between a supposed truth of faith contradicting reason than a truth of faith not being understood by reason. If something contradicts reason, then it automatically is false. This applies also to religion, I would say (as well as Aquinas and those rest) … if some religious doctrine contradicts the truth as it can be known by human reason, then that religious doctrine is false.

Now, a lot of times, people claim that a particular rational idea contradicts a particular religious idea, when in fact, there is either no actual contradiction or, if there is, the “rational idea” is not something rational at all but false (or, yes, the religious idea could be false … or both).

Now, there is also a case where a truth of faith is not understood by reason and yet does not contradict it either. An example here is the Incarnation, where Christ simultaneously had two natures (human and divine). Reason can’t sort out how that’s possible but it can’t see how it could technically be impossible either.

I assert, though, that this issue (that this thread poses) can actually be much more understood by human reason than most religious and non-religious people claim.

Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender. Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil. Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil.

Okay, here, I think it is wise to define what is meant by “love.” What is the definition of love? Does anyone think this is important? Also, what is meant by “good?” And “evil” for that matter. I would, with respect, ask you, Spock, to explain what these mean. I’ll explain what I (and the Church, I think) means by these terms on my next post, though I have already partly done so with some thoroughness (at least with “good”) in this previous post(s):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5386262&postcount=61
and continued here …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5386263&postcount=62

(but you don’t have to read it … do what you feel like)

Nonsense. Giving **and **accepting pleasure is an expression of love. I would accept your reasoning if the act would be unilateral. If the aim would only be “accepting” pleasure, it would be selfish. But giving **and **accepting pleasure is mutual. Where is the evil in that? Also the giving and receiving pleasure does not have to be simultaneous. One can give and not receive at a certain time, while one can receive and not give at another time - all these by mutual consensus of the partners involved.

Do you perhaps accept the possibility that two people can consent to do something that isn’t good for them (even if it gives them some kind of pleasure)? Are there at least exceptions to this?

A good work to read that convinced me that pleasure and goodness are different was Plato’s Gorgias. It completely changed my life.

But once again, Spock, what do you mean by love, goodness, and evil?

 

[fhansen]

Then you never read those threads which deal with the problem of evil… where the posters say that the “greater good” of free will justifies God’s inaction in preventing these acts… And those where others argue that no matter how horrendous some acts may be, God can turn them around and makes something much better from them - which of course justifies their existence. Of course they do not say outright that rapes are justifyable, they just find feeble excuses why these acts are permitted by God.

But that’s what makes freedom…well, freedom. God doesn’t rape, torture, kill-people do- because, yes, they’re allowed to do anything and everything they can imagine and are physically capable of. But isn’t our freedom of self-determination exactly what we pride ourselves in and fight to hold onto? The Catholic world view faces the “problem of evil” squarely by admitting that evil does exist, that it should not be, and that its existence is only possible because of the freedom people possess to determine right and wrong for themselves. The answer is for people to give up their own individual brand of righteousness and consciously recognize the wisdom of an objective standard created by a rightful standard-giver. To the extent this is done, moral evil diminishes.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”.

 

[Victorious]

Look at yourself from the outside. First, you assert - unanimously - that the highest value for God is love. You also say (and I agree) that love must be manifested in actions, a “proclaimed” love without actions is useless. Then, also unanimously you condemn the sexual expression of love between two consenting adults as evil and sinful, if those two people happen to belong to the same gender.

Scripture unequivocally condemns homosexual acts. This is not our rule, but God’s.

Also, I’m not sure we agree on the definition of “love.” Love is not a feeling. To love is to will the good of another, whatever it may cost you. The ultimate good for any person is eternal salvation, so true love necessarily entails not wanting the loved one to commit or cooperate in acts that jeopardize his eternal salvation. Therefore, regardless of your feelings, you cannot truly love someone you commit fornication or homosexual acts with, because you are getting them to cooperate in something that gravely offends God, thereby endangering their immortal soul.

Even if they are legitimally married heterosexuals, but their act is not aimed at procreation (rather simple pleasure seeking) you say that their act of love is evil.

God put pleasure into sex in order to help us fulfill His command to be fruitful and multiply. To seek the pleasure as an end in itself is an abuse. It also turns the other person into an object. And again, by getting our spouses to cooperate in grave sin, we show the extent to which we do not love them, since we put the pleasure of the moment over their immortal soul.

God’s rules invariably turn out to be the wisest ones and the best for us, as we discover to our sorrow whenever we break them. We can’t measure the damage that has been done to society in general and to relations between the sexes in particular by the emphasis on pleasure-seeking in sex. The world does not look at it that way; but you can’t deny that there are an awful lot of people out there having sex who are not prepared in any sense for the responsibility that comes with sex. Innocent children are the first ones to pay the price for this.

Next, you try to find “excuses” for the acts of supreme “non-love”, for example rape, torture, murder - by saying that we “cannot know” if these acts are truly evil. There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”. But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Don’t you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

Yes. And it doesn’t surprise us, because the Founder of our Faith warned us that this would be the case.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There is no hesitation in the condemnation of homosexual love, there is no “maybe it is OK, we just don’t know”.

Homosexual love is not condemned by the Catholic church. That’s what we are asking homosexuals to do – to *love *one another. Since love is an action of giving one’s life for the other’s good, love is always a good in itself. We just don’t think that self-giving love is well nurtured by being sexually active with any person you are not married to.

So should we allow gay people to marry each other, then? There are different levels to this discussion, but let me just pick one: same-sex relationships are very rarely faithful (this is especially the case for men). How can you be giving your life for another person’s good if you deny them the fullness of your sexuality?

Mind you, many people in the Catholic church are much too hard on gay people. It isn’t the worst sin in the world. Self-righteousness was more condemned by Jesus than any sexual sin.

Side note: I wouldn’t call every sin “evil”. Sin is falling away from perfection, or “missing the mark”. If you sin with the intention to hurt yourself or others (roughly, this is what the church calls mortal sin), now that would be evil. But people who do not know that something is wrong or harmful certainly do not do evil, although they do sin (miss the mark).

 

[TheLearner]

Why? Love between a male and a female, who **cannot **conceive (due to physical deficiency - like a hysterectomy) is not considered “evil”. But even it that case Catholics consider it evil to have extra-vaginal intercourse.

As I said,* this love is the kind of love we express and act out sexually: its an act connected with the supreme love of [giving ourselves to each other and] giving another being it’s existence*. I didn’t say every sexual activity will or has to lead to reproduction. Don’t twist my words.

Nonsense. Giving **and **accepting pleasure is an expression of love. I would accept your reasoning if the act would be unilateral. If the aim would only be “accepting” pleasure, it would be selfish. But giving **and **accepting pleasure is mutual. Where is the evil in that? Also the giving and receiving pleasure does not have to be simultaneous. One can give and not receive at a certain time, while one can receive and not give at another time - all these by mutual consensus of the partners involved.

Theres no evil in pleasure in itself. There can be evil in some forms of pleasure, if it is pleasure in others suffering for instance (sadism). But that is obviously not what we are talking about. All I am saying is that pleasure doesn’t in itself constitute love. You keep twisting my words.

No, I don’t, and even if I did, it would not matter. Also your stipulation that creation is the sign of love makes no sense. One cannot “love” a nonexistent being. At the very least the being must exist before one can love it.

The act of creating it is itself an act of love towards it.

 

[Victorious]

Side note: I wouldn’t call every sin “evil”. Sin is falling away from perfection, or “missing the mark”. If you sin with the intention to hurt yourself or others (roughly, this is what the church calls mortal sin), now that would be evil. But people who do not know that something is wrong or harmful certainly do not do evil, although they do sin (miss the mark).

In fact, sin is the greatest evil, because it offends the infinitely good and loving God, and it brings us that much closer to perdition. We don’t take seriously how terrifying infinite goodness is. We tend to take it too lightly, but in fact, infinite goodness necessarily entails infinite hatred of evil. Most of us do not get how abhorrent the smallest sin is to God. This is because our love of God is so cold.

Read the lives of the saints, and you will see that an outstanding characteristic of those who practice heroic virtue is that they avoid sin as they would avoid a plague. Like St. Dominic Savio (who died at the age of 13), they would rather die than sin.

By the way, if you read the homilies of the Cure of Ars (published by TAN Books), you will see that the Cure called Bravo Sierra on the idea that you can commit mortal sin without intending thereby to sever yourself from God’s grace.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Scripture unequivocally condemns homosexual acts. This is not our rule, but God’s.

Also, I’m not sure we agree on the definition of “love.” Love is not a feeling. To love is to will the good of another, whatever it may cost you. The ultimate good for any person is eternal salvation, so true love necessarily entails not wanting the loved one to commit or cooperate in acts that jeopardize his eternal salvation. Therefore, regardless of your feelings, you cannot truly love someone you commit fornication or homosexual acts with, because you are getting them to cooperate in something that gravely offends God, thereby endangering their immortal soul.

God put pleasure into sex in order to help us fulfill His command to be fruitful and multiply. To seek the pleasure as an end in itself is an abuse. It also turns the other person into an object. And again, by getting our spouses to cooperate in grave sin, we show the extent to which we do not love them, since we put the pleasure of the moment over their immortal soul.

God’s rules invariably turn out to be the wisest ones and the best for us, as we discover to our sorrow whenever we break them. We can’t measure the damage that has been done to society in general and to relations between the sexes in particular by the emphasis on pleasure-seeking in sex. The world does not look at it that way; but you can’t deny that there are an awful lot of people out there having sex who are not prepared in any sense for the responsibility that comes with sex. Innocent children are the first ones to pay the price for this.



Yes. And it doesn’t surprise us, because the Founder of our Faith warned us that this would be the case.

excellent exposition!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In fact, sin is the greatest evil, because it offends the infinitely good and loving God, and it brings us that much closer to perdition. We don’t take seriously how terrifying infinite goodness is. We tend to take it too lightly, but in fact, infinite goodness necessarily entails infinite hatred of evil. Most of us do not get how abhorrent the smallest sin is to God. This is because our love of God is so cold.

Read the lives of the saints, and you will see that an outstanding characteristic of those who practice heroic virtue is that they avoid sin as they would avoid a plague. Like St. Dominic Savio (who died at the age of 13), they would rather die than sin.

Victorious,

I wasn’t saying that sin shouldn’t be avoided. I was saying that a person who does not know something is wrong has not done something evil. They have, however, sinned (missed the mark). This all hinges around the meaning of the word “evil”, I know. I take “evil” to mean “vile, malicious”, roughly what Jesus meant when he used the phrase “brood of vipers”.

I would say that goodness entails hatred of all *sins *, especially those sins I myself am most tempted toward. I would tend, however, toward the Augustinian idea that “evil” is, at base, simply a lack. How can you hate something that does not exist? The lowest demon in hell is the most to be pitied, not to be reviled, because he has taken the possibility of full existence (goodness) and exchanged it for an insubstantial lie (evil).

As far as your statement that “sin is the greatest evil” goes, I would say that evil is incomprehensible without sin. So evil entails sin, but sin does not in itself entail evil.

We can’t measure the damage that has been done to society in general and to relations between the sexes in particular by the emphasis on pleasure-seeking in sex. The world does not look at it that way; but you can’t deny that there are an awful lot of people out there having sex who are not prepared in any sense for the responsibility that comes with sex. Innocent children are the first ones to pay the price for this.

I also want to emphasize this statement, and I couldn’t agree more. Pleasure, in itself, is not wrong. But the very nature of sex contains more than just pleasure, and we forget this at our own (and society’s) peril.

 

[Mijoy2]

Then you never read those threads which deal with the problem of evil… where the posters say that the “greater good” of free will justifies God’s inaction in preventing these acts… And those where others argue that no matter how horrendous some acts may be, God can turn them around and makes something much better from them - which of course justifies their existence. Of course they do not say outright that rapes are justifyable, they just find feeble excuses why these acts are permitted by God.

Hi Spock,

I certainly share some of your objections (though I have faith that it is me that is mistaken and not Truth). However, I really can;t see where your problem is with the concept of God allowing evil to exist. Try to think of it this way. If we were to remove a “cap” of Gods allowance of evil to exist, wouldn’t we be in heaven? In other words, your OP did not seem to come froma deep rooted atheistic orign (I may be mistaken). If you do believe in some concept of a Christian God, then you believe in some sort of a trial here on earth. If so, then earth is not heaven and there needs to be a differnence. On earth we must live out fallen nature and somehow show our desire for a perfect Truth and a perfect Love. Our fallen nature is brought upon this evil(s). God simply is carrying out His plan to provide us a way out.

Not a theologeon (can’t even spell it) by any means. These are just my thoughts.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Spock:

We would agree, would we not, that eating is a pleasurable (as well as a necessary) activity for humans.

Of course, one can eat to excess; one can also starve oneself.

Therefore, one can be promiscuous (sex to excess) or celibate (no sex at all) and both of these are related to the legitimate act of eating ‘enough.’

Now here’s the thing. . .

There is also a condition called “pica”. In pica, the human being in question does not hunger for food, but instead for a non-food --clay, dirt, laundry starch, even feces.

To eat THESE things is not legitimate and in fact can cause illness. Certainly if one only ate the pica one craved and ignored real food, one could die.

Homosexual actions are a disorder to the sexual impulse just as pica is a disorder to the ‘eating’ impulse. These disorders are different from the extremes of either 'too much sex or no sex" or ‘too much food or not enough food.’

The disorders of pica and homosexuality consist in a ‘substitution’ of something which is NOT legitimate to the impulse. Homosexual actions are not natural sexual actions of intercourse and never can be, even if they mimic those actions, even if they ‘can’ be engaged in, even if they do not ‘appear’ to be dangerous or to ‘hurt’ anybody other than the person involved. Eating pica (non-food) is not natural and never can be, even if the person swallows the substance without ill effect at the time.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Why? Love between a male and a female, who **cannot **conceive (due to physical deficiency - like a hysterectomy) is not considered “evil”. But even it that case Catholics consider it evil to have extra-vaginal intercourse.

If they had had hysterectomies in the middle ages, chances are that it would be considered evil as well.

But as it turns out, the only physical deficiency known to guarantee sterility in the middle ages was male castration, so that is the only prohibition the Catholic Church enforces.