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

[Spock]

I thank you for your thorough response, Spock. The clarity in your words was much appreciated.

You are most welcome.

All right. Perhaps you may need to flush this definition out a bit more for me … but, if I’m not mistaken, when you mean a “positive” emotion, you mean an emotion that inclines one to be helpful to others rather than harmful. Right?

Yes, very correct.

Now, as a side note, which you don’t have to accept, Christians as well as many pagan philosophers claimed that there existed at least two different kinds of love. Namely, rational love and sensual love. Rational love pertains to the will, while sensual love pertains to emotions/passions. We are bifurcated in that sense. Sometimes, the will and the emotions can be at odds, in which case we either work to reorient our emotions (somehow) to go along with what our will wants, or we can have our will give into the emotions. In other words, emotion is not the only kind of love … there’s the will … but you might not agree with that … and that’s fine … for now. We don’t have to get into it at the moment … possibly.

Agreed. We can create many little “boxes” with labels on them, and dissect “love” into small parts, and stash them away.

Now, the real key to our disagreement, I think, is something you mentioned in the definition of “good” … you said good has to be “helpful” to somehow. I ask, what do you mean by this? It could mean various things … for example, it could mean assisting one to become a better person, or it could mean assisting them to do something that they want.

Both and possibly even more. I mentioned the parable of the boy-scout in one of my previous posts to illutrate it. It all depends on the persons involved.

According to what you said earlier, however, smoking isn’t evil (even though it may be harmful). On the contrary (according to you), because if a person consents to smoking, then it is good, because as long as you consent to something, it is by definition good (according to you).

A minor correction. In the definition of “evil” I explicitly stipulated that “causing harm to others” is what constitutes evil. What you do to yourself is your own business.

Good question. It took me awhile to figure out this one in my life. First of all, on a somewhat related but possibly needlessly distracting point, your use of the terms “positive” and “negative” are a bit ambiguous in your previously mentioned definition of good and evil (unless you mean simply that negative mean “doing harm” and positive mean “not doing harm” or something like that). Originally, until the 20th century, I think, the “negative” of something mean “the absence of” something, and “positive” meant the presence or reality of something.

I am a mathematician, and it shows. Between the positive and the negative there is zero. The “tertium non datur” only applies to “positive” and “non-positive”. Between good and bad there is indifferent. Between moral and immoral there is amoral. Between black and white there are millions of shades of grey.

I hope this clarifies my position.

 

[Areopagite]

In the definition of “evil” I explicitly stipulated that “causing harm to others” is what constitutes evil. What you do to yourself is your own business.

With this, though, would consensual cannibalism be considered evil? If the person you intend to consume agrees to be eaten, is it still not harmful to the person to eat him? Or does harm really consist in merely going against another person’s will/want? What exactly do you mean by harm?

Also, just for squeaky-clean clarity, you are saying that harming yourself is not evil, right? Doing drugs and stuff is legit, right?

The 6 years old boy-scout goes home and his father asks him, what kind of good deeds did he accomplish. The boy answers: “I and five of my friends helped an old man to cross a busy street”. The father says: “very nice, but why did you need your five freinds?”. “Because the old guy did not want to cross the street!” - answers the boy. I hope you see the point. And the second part is sheer nonsense. Self-sacrifice is not necessary to substantite one’s love.

And then you explain:

So I will explain: the boy-scout wanted to be helpful to the old man, but failed to investigate what the old man’s need was. He and his freinds assumed what the old man wanted, and “helped” him over his protests. Have you ever heard of “overwhelming and suffocating” love? I am sure you did.

I would say, technically, you are possibly making (again)** the equivocation between what is good for a person and what a person consents to**. The two are different. But you might also agree that they are different, but I am unclear still of your position on this matter.

Hypothetically (and this might be a stretch … but hear my silliness out), forcing the old man to cross the street might have been a good thing, despite the old man’s objections. For example, (and, yeah, this is a stretch, but my point is valid) the building next to him was about to explode, and assuming the boy scouts knew that, relocating the old man to a safe distance could have been very beneficial for him and actually in line to what he actually wanted in an ultimate sense (preserving his life). My ridiculous example here is to point out that what is a good for a person versus what a person immediately wants might be different. And I think you might be overlooking that.

Now, the natural and ordinary interpretation of your story is that the old man really had no need to be relocated and that the old man knew that perfectly well. And so I agree, I think, that self-sacrifice by itself is not necessarily for true love. True love, I think, needs to be informed about what’s actually good for the person (though, as said before, this might not involve the consent of the person).

My parents forced me to do certain things (e.g. go to school), that I did not consent to … but they were good for me and thank God they enforced those things.

I am a mathematician, and it shows. Between the positive and the negative there is zero. The “tertium non datur” only applies to “positive” and “non-positive”. Between good and bad there is indifferent. Between moral and immoral there is amoral. Between black and white there are millions of shades of grey.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Fair enough. There might be some kind of equivalent to philosophical jargon with what you’re saying. There are two kinds of nothings … negation and privation. Privation is a lack of something when that certain something should be there. An example is when someone is missing an arm. By nature, that person should have an arm, but he lacks it … the absence of the arm is a privation. Negation is simply an absence of something when that something is not required to be there. The lack of wings on humans is a negation, for example.

This relates to goodness. ** Goodness pertains to the completeness/fulfillment of something.** For example, when a person has all his limbs and everything is there that’s suppose to be there, things are good with him. He has a kind of completeness. When something deters from that kind of completeness (and it may be a psychological incompleteness, not just a limb-related one), then it’s a privation. Privation, most would say, by definition is a kind of evil. And privation, since it is the absence of a completion, is thus an absence of goodness. That is why (one of the reasons, at least) evil is considered the absence of goodness. Goodness is having completion and evil is not having completion. Does that kinda make sense?

Now, there a very similar usages of the term “goodness” which I address in this previous post(s) …

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=61
and continued here …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…3&postcount=62

But once again, you don’t have to read them. They may not be important. But I would ask you, most importantly, what do you mean by harm? Does it necessarily have to do with consent (or rather, going against one’s consent)? And if you say that it is possible to harm someone who consents to being harmed, then your remarks that seem to sanction certain acts* just because they are consensual* doesn’t seem to hold up as a real reason for those acts to be necessarily justified. You must clearly define what you mean by “harm.” What is the criteria to determine whether something is harmful to a person or not.

I apologize if I’m not being clear enough.

 

[Spock]

of course others provide a better exposition of the sin at the heart of homosexuality. yet the claim here proposing some contradiction in our beliefs is best answered by both those expositions, and mine on the idea that we excuse evil acts. i am simply approaching from a different angle, though if you wish to restrict the conversation now to that i understand, there is simply too much to divide your attention, thanks for answering.

I am just fine with talking about both. Actually, it is better to talk about both problems. You keep insisting that condemning rape, etc… might be incorrect (due to our lack of omniscience), while condemning homosexual practices is correct - since you do claim omniscience in that case. This is precisely the the kind of inconsistent behavior that I am exposing and questioning in this thread. You cannot cherry pick and claim omniscience to justify your condemnation in one case, and claim lack of omniscience to avoid condemnation in the other.

 

[Spock]

With this, though, would consensual cannibalism be considered evil? If the person you intend to consume agrees to be eaten, is it still not harmful to the person to eat him? Or does harm really consist in merely going against another person’s will/want? What exactly do you mean by harm?

Harm is either physical or psychological. Beating someone is harmful. Putting someone into an uncomfortable positon is harmful. These are just example, but I hope they convey what I think.

Also, just for squeaky-clean clarity, you are saying that harming yourself is not evil, right? Doing drugs and stuff is legit, right?

Yes, it should be.

I would say, technically, you are possibly making (again)** the equivocation between what is good for a person and what a person consents to**. The two are different. But you might also agree that they are different, but I am unclear still of your position on this matter.

The two may or may not coincide, I agree. I will go into details in the next paragraph.

Hypothetically (and this might be a stretch … but hear my silliness out), forcing the old man to cross the street might have been a good thing, despite the old man’s objections. For example, (and, yeah, this is a stretch, but my point is valid) the building next to him was about to explode, and assuming the boy scouts knew that, relocating the old man to a safe distance could have been very beneficial for him and actually in line to what he actually wanted in an ultimate sense (preserving his life). My ridiculous example here is to point out that what is a good for a person versus what a person immediately wants might be different. And I think you might be overlooking that.

Your example is far from ridiculous. It is a very good example that our decisons are always contingent upon what we know. Here is how to resolve it: If there is a danger of the building collapsing, the kids can inform the old man about the danger, thus giving him a better foundation for making a decision. If there is no time to do that, then the children are justified for using force, and they can hope that the old man will consent later. The point is that adults should be treated as adults and we must assume (though we may err sometimes!) that they know what is best for them.

My parents forced me to do certain things (e.g. go to school), that I did not consent to … but they were good for me and thank God they enforced those things.

Children are not adults, and should not be treated as such. As you say, you did not agree to all the rules your parents forced you to accept, but in hindsight you see their wisdom and give your “late” consent now - just as the boy-scouts can hope that the old man will give his consent.

Sometimes we err in our judgment. If we are mistaken, then we apologize and hope that our good intentions will be appreciated. But generally we should not treat adults like children and make decisons for them. As the old saying goes: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

There are two kinds of nothings … negation and privation.

These are equivalent - they both can substituted by “lack of…”. Negation and opposite are the two terms properly describing the difference. The lack of “white” is not “black”. The opposite of “white” is “black”.

This relates to goodness. Goodness pertains to the completeness/fulfillment of something. For example, when a person has all his limbs and everything is there that’s suppose to be there, things are good with him. He has a kind of completeness. When something deters from that kind of completeness (and it may be a psychological incompleteness, not just a limb-related one), then it’s a privation. Privation, most would say, by definition is a kind of evil. And privation, since it is the absence of a completion, is thus an absence of goodness. That is why (one of the reasons, at least) evil is considered the absence of goodness. Goodness is having completion and evil is not having completion. Does that kinda make sense?

Yes, it does, in the sense that it is logical from your point of view and that I understand your argument. But I don’t agree with it. Let me use the glass example: what if a glass is only 90% full? It is not completely full, so there a “privation” there. Is that “evil”? (Don’t take “evil” here in the literal sense.)

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you again for your systematic and succinct answers. Very helpful.

Harm is either physical or psychological. Beating someone is harmful. Putting someone into an uncomfortable positon is harmful. These are just example, but I hope they convey what I think.

That’s much more clear, thank you. Although you did not define it, technically, I think I can gather what you mean by the examples.

So, you would say that evil is when harm is done to another without that person’s consent. It is consent, you say, that is the determining factor whether a harmful action done to another is evil or not. However, I disagree to this … the consent of the person to whom the action is being done does not necessarily make the action good or evil. The reason I say this, I think, is very in line with common sense …

Let me say a few other things, first …

If there is a danger of the building collapsing, the kids can inform the old man about the danger, thus giving him a better foundation for making a decision. If there is no time to do that, then the children are justified for using force, and they can hope that the old man will consent later.

So, if the old man does not give consent later on, what would that mean? Why should they hope that the old man gives consent?

The point is that adults should be treated as adults and we must assume (though we may err sometimes!) that they know what is best for them.

Children are not adults, and should not be treated as such. As you say, you did not agree to all the rules your parents forced you to accept, but in hindsight you see their wisdom and give your “late” consent now - just as the boy-scouts can hope that the old man will give his consent.

Sometimes we err in our judgment. If we are mistaken, then we apologize and hope that our good intentions will be appreciated. But generally we should not treat adults like children and make decisons for them. As the old saying goes: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Interesting. I may partially agree with you. I just want to ask you, though: Why? What do adults possess that children don’t when it comes to imposing rules on them without their consent? Also, once again, if the child grows up and never gives his retroactive consent (never, for example, accepting the idea that he had to go to school) does this mean the parents did evil to him, since they harmed him (i.e. made him feel uncomfortable) without his consent (that never even came afterwards)?

Yes, it does, in the sense that it is logical from your point of view and that I understand your argument. But I don’t agree with it. Let me use the glass example: what if a glass is only 90% full? It is not completely full, so there a “privation” there. Is that “evil”? (Don’t take “evil” here in the literal sense.)

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is a privation there. It’s not necessary to what a glass is that it should have anything in it at all in order for it to be a good glass. However, to be a good, healthy human being (in the physiological sense at least), you must have all your limbs. Don’t you agree? I don’t see how the glass being partially empty (or full) means that it has a privation, for the identity of the glass as a glass is not dependent on the amount of liquid inside of it. I would maintain, then, that privation is a kind of evil. This is, of course, not talking about moral evil but ontological evil (but, as I shall try to show, I think there is a connection between the two).

Now, I was unclear whether or not you agreed that goodness pertains to completeness/fulfillment of a thing. For example, if a pen is missing it’s tip, it is not a good pen because it cannot write (i.e. it cannot function as a pen). Likewise, if someone is psychologically damaged, they lack psychological wholeness, and thus their mental life is said to not be in good condition. I would also say that harm causes things to move away from goodness, because harm necessarily changes something from a good state to a kind of bad state. Harm, then, no matter what, since it takes away goodness, is always evil (in the ontological sense). Right? Do you disagree with this? If you do disagree, then would you say a “good pen” or “good anything” is completely devoid of meaning and perhaps even points to an erroneous concept? Isn’t there ontological goodness rather than just moral goodness?

Now, the question is … what constitutes a moral evil? This can expand into a complex ethics course. But before I even try to think about doing that, I would say (and this will no doubt lead to more questions) that a moral evil is aimed at causing unjustified harm to a person, whether the person consents to it or not. It also doesn’t matter if one causes harm to oneself … like cutting oneself, or killing oneself. Such acts to oneself is not a good thing in the ontological or moral sense. It’s messed up. There is obviously something wrong with you then, and you need help. Many would agree with me on this because it’s common sense. If you truly loved a person, you would try to stop him from killing himself. You would try to stop them from cutting themselves or wasting their lives away with drugs. You might disagree. But I think love, by definition, is the desire (and/or action) that seeks the good of a person. It seeks to make that person into more of what a person should be.

To recap, my main standing issues with your position are in regard to: the relation between the consent of a victim and morality of the action, the existence of ontological goodness, and the relevant difference between adults and children. I might have missed one. Thank you again for your continued response.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Literally speaking you cannot give “all” of yourself. What you say is just a pretty metaphore.

Not so. If I say that I will serve my wife, for the rest of my life, no matter what circumstances arise, this is a promise I am capable of keeping. Certainly this does not exclude my loving or serving other people, as well. My vow to my wife is not a true promise unless it precludes me from the desires contrary to her that might come up in the future. Surely a person is capable of such a promise?

It is possible that some people can love (sexually) more than one other person at the same time, and not shortchange either one of them. It may be rare, but not impossible.

Those people must be really flexible.

Seriously, though, I don’t think that’s right. We are, by nature, sensitive to the slightings of romantic love. This sensitivity is a good thing, because it enables all the finer aspects of our lives – music and poetry, for example. Such sensitivity cannot permit a panoply, nor even a duplicity, of lovers. Literature is full of examples of how this does not work, and I am not familiar with a single literary (nor real-life) example of it working. In real life, it may very well *seem *to work, but is it not common for people to hide their jealousies and misgivings?

Mind you, not everyone is so sensitive. Our sensitivity to love can be dulled by coarse and inferior influences we expose ourselves to – this would, in my own estimation, account for “open relationships”.

I’m not sure that I ever really addressed your full original statement of the problem, however. Why do we excuse God for His allowing heinous acts of evil to occur? Personally, I don’t think we should. We should rail and rail and rail against Him for an answer, and never be satisfied with easy answers.

But it is not even in our nature to know ourselves, much less to fathom God. From my perspective, the idea of rejecting a God who has revealed Himself to me is absurd. I am not in a position to know everything, nor am I qualified to judge God. I do agree that He has some explaining to do, however.

 

[AndyF]

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.

None of these recommendations is of our own making. If he had said it was right we would have joyously said it was right.

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

Yes, the possibility of children must be at the forefront, and with this news you have the evidence we aren’t biased.

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.

Some acts are intrinsically evil and the Church says so.

(newadvent/sin) “This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil eg: blasphemy,etc”

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

True, an abomination doesn’t leave room for lessor categories, it is intrinsically evil. But this rule finds reinforcement with the rules for valid Matrimony, and also for when sex is appropriate. Together they reconcile.

But there are all sorts of excuses in regard of really evil acts. And you assert that God thinks like you…

Again we don’t make the rules.

you realize how strange you are from the outside? How utterly incomprehensible?

We’re in good company, they said that to Him also.

                    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for some good news.

1/ This is not a condition, it’s an affliction.
2/ No one “IS” anything, “gay” or otherwise. No one “is” the sin.
3/The state is a temporary one. ie: a mistake was made, change the life and move on. Yes, the victim will find it more delectable and his state more nebulous has he goes along, and is a sign that graces are being diminished and God pulls away to allow for his desire to worship the thing.
4/It is a very subtle and deceptive sin that receives aid from the libido and depressive states such has chronic shyness, and applied low self esteem, all the while under pressure to express sexually.
5/It calls for trust by him because it mirrors a sexual personality not his own. It mirrors the desires of the* thing* that is the cause, which is why there exists a pressure within him to identify with the *thing, *and is tricked to proclaim it has his natural self. He needs to be convinced that what he does is not a manifestation of who he truly is, and society should not give in to the things demands such has labelling, or offer it assistance by creating a foundation for scandal, as one day he will need a clear social path to recovery. No one should label a person has “gay” or anything else.

The remedy is open to anyone of these who dares to give the benefit of the doubt to Mary, the Queen of Heaven who yearns to prove her love, and to the Church who provides the weapons thru Penance and the Eucharist, and to our Saintly friends on the front line. He will need to pray and fast, "This kind does not leave but by prayer and fasting."Mat17,21(rosary devotion), and charity will motivate the heavenly host to help.

Andy

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I am just fine with talking about both. Actually, it is better to talk about both problems. You keep insisting that condemning rape, etc… might be incorrect (due to our lack of omniscience),

not our lack of omniscience, just our lack of all relevant information.

while condemning homosexual practices is correct - since you do claim omniscience in that case.

im not claiming omniscience in this case either, we take G-ds condemnation in Scripture for our position.

 

[survive]

I will first dispose of the straw man argument about our supposed failure to condemn rape and other violence. We do condemn such acts. We just don’t reject God simply because some people do bad things. The difference is infinite and obvious. If I were carjacked on the highway I wouldn’t reject the highway department and drive off the road over it. I would call the police and try to get justice done, and then I would do what is sensible – when my car is returned, I will stay on the road. It would benefit no one for victims to reject God. It would only do them further injury.
“Extra-vaginal intercourse” of any kind is not the same act as the marital act and is not what the involved parts are meant for. As such, it rejects the biological integrity of one anothers’ bodies, whether the people involved are conscious of this or not.
Sex is not love. Love is not sex. Both are good and they go well together, but so do coffee and cinnamon – yet they can’t stand in for one another. Is it really possible anyone thinks they are the same thing? Love can take an endless variety of forms, while sex can have any or no content at all. God is Love, but that doesn’t mean everything anyone happens to emotionally associate with love is of God. Coffee is a berry but that doesn’t mean anything that reminds some people of strawberry ice cream is a Kona bush.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

They didn’t have tubal ligation then - but that is definitely a non-no.​

Castration is forbidden now, because of the principle of totality.

• [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...q=principle of totality and integrity&f=false (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...q=principle of totality and integrity&f=false)

 

[Spock]

So, if the old man does not give consent later on, what would that mean? Why should they hope that the old man gives consent?

If he did not give his consent, then the kids used force to make the old man to do something that he did not want. Whether we call that “evil”, or “misguided helpfulness”, is just a minor point. I would not call it downright “evil”, of course. It does not merit such a strong condemnation. But it is something that the kids should not have done.

Interesting. I may partially agree with you. I just want to ask you, though: Why? What do adults possess that children don’t when it comes to imposing rules on them without their consent?

The adults (hopefully) possess more knowledge, more wisdom, and can see the benefit on the child’s behalf, which the child does not see. We must presume that the parents have more understanding, and if the child would be in the position to make a valid assessment of the facts, he would agree.

Also, once again, if the child grows up and never gives his retroactive consent (never, for example, accepting the idea that he had to go to school) does this mean the parents did evil to him, since they harmed him (i.e. made him feel uncomfortable) without his consent (that never even came afterwards)?

“Evil” again might be too strong a word here.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think there is a privation there. It’s not necessary to what a glass is that it should have anything in it at all in order for it to be a good glass.

I was not talking about the “glass” itself, I was talking about the “glass of water”, which may only be 90% full. Is there a privation there?

Now, I was unclear whether or not you agreed that goodness pertains to completeness/fulfillment of a thing.

Goodness and fulfillment is a relative term - pertaining to something. Someone might be severly handicapped, but can function perfectly well in a virtual environment, like this discussion board.

Now, the question is … what constitutes a moral evil? This can expand into a complex ethics course. But before I even try to think about doing that, I would say (and this will no doubt lead to more questions) that a moral evil is aimed at causing unjustified harm to a person, whether the person consents to it or not. It also doesn’t matter if one causes harm to oneself … like cutting oneself, or killing oneself. Such acts to oneself is not a good thing in the ontological or moral sense. It’s messed up. There is obviously something wrong with you then, and you need help. Many would agree with me on this because it’s common sense.

Common sense is great, but not always applicable. The person’s integrity and desires cannot be just dispensed with - saying that “mama knows better”.

If you truly loved a person, you would try to stop him from killing himself. You would try to stop them from cutting themselves or wasting their lives away with drugs. You might disagree.

No, I don’t disagree. It is absolutely acceptable to try to help, where you perceive that the person is in dire need of help. What is not acceptable is to attempt to help, and when the person tells you that your help is unwelcome, then turn around and do it anyway.

 

[Spock]

Not so. If I say that I will serve my wife, for the rest of my life, no matter what circumstances arise, this is a promise I am capable of keeping. Certainly this does not exclude my loving or serving other people, as well. My vow to my wife is not a true promise unless it precludes me from the desires contrary to her that might come up in the future. Surely a person is capable of such a promise?

Yes, but such promise is not rational. We cannot foresee the future, therefore such an unconditional promise is beautiful, but unrealistic.

Those people must be really flexible.

Yes, but that is not a surprise. Biologically, males and females have different “preconditioning”. For the male it is optimal startegy to spread his “seed” in as wide a circle as he can. For the female (who has the burden to raising the children) it is optimal to have one mate and provider for the sake of the children. We are a few hundreds of thousands of years from our ancestors, but biology is a persistent factor.

And if the couple decides that they do not want children (not infrequent these days) and they do not expect fidelity from each other, then it becomes their business. They may not make the best choice, but it is their choice. As far as I am concerned, there is only one positive right: the right to make bad decisions - and carry the consequences.

I’m not sure that I ever really addressed your full original statement of the problem, however. Why do we excuse God for His allowing heinous acts of evil to occur? Personally, I don’t think we should. We should rail and rail and rail against Him for an answer, and never be satisfied with easy answers.

Agreed. Too bad the answer is not forthcoming.

I do agree that He has some explaining to do, however.

I love it!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Castration is forbidden now, because of the principle of totality.

What I was trying to say was that men who have been castrated post-puberty who are capable of completed vaginal intercourse, are nonetheless forbidden by the Catholic Church to enter into marriage, and that prohibition is still in force today. The 1977 CDF decision to allow men with vasectomies to enter into marriage did not extend so far as to include castrated males.

But certainly, castration is wrong.

 

[Spock]

None of these recommendations is of our own making. If he had said it was right we would have joyously said it was right…

Yes, the possibility of children must be at the forefront, and with this news you have the evidence we aren’t biased…

Some acts are intrinsically evil and the Church says so…

True, an abomination doesn’t leave room for lessor categories, it is intrinsically evil…

Again we don’t make the rules…

This is precisely what leaves me incredulous. You say that the number one priority for God is love. You also say that God’s love is unconditional. And then you turn around that say that some expressions of geniune love is unacceptable for God. Don’t you see that your two assertions are contradicting each other? Why would God prohibit some expressions of love? An unconditional love (on God’s part) would allow to express our love for each other in any way possible. Unconditional love does not set up conditions.

 

[AndyF]

Unconditional love does not set up conditions.

The love that flows from God is pure and unconditional. The love that flows from us at one time was pure, until we decided to share it with our nature and with the prince, thus assigning conditions to it.

So from then on we are cautious. We may mistaken an expression of love as emanating from the vestige of Divine love of our heritage, but in fact emanates from the hatred and corrupt intentions that is the prince’s domain. So therefore we need a buffer of sorts, a channeling point where we can study the action that wishes to play out. This buffer contains the Word and the Church that selectively points out the correct choice to make.

The intellect aided by conscience first passes the desire through a discernment process. If it is discovered it is not sanctioned, then the act becomes an expression of love to the prince. The conscience requires honing, best accomplished by correct choices. It taps into the strength of our Lord.

This is why the use of the word marriage between same sex individuals is misplaced. If God’s criteria is not met, then the act is categorized has any other performed for the prince through cult ritual, and it will surely be he that presides. Now the couple find their act is compounded has God had warned, since one can only worship God.

It should be remembered also that anyone who advances their cause and aligns himself against the Church shares their guilt.

Andy

 

[Spock]

The love that flows from God is pure and unconditional. The love that flows from us at one time was pure, until we decided to share it with our nature and with the prince, thus assigning conditions to it.

So from then on we are cautious. We may mistaken an expression of love as emanating from the vestige of Divine love of our heritage, but in fact emanates from the hatred and corrupt intentions that is the prince’s domain. So therefore we need a buffer of sorts, a channeling point where we can study the action that wishes to play out. This buffer contains the Word and the Church that selectively points out the correct choice to make.

The intellect aided by conscience first passes the desire through a discernment process. If it is discovered it is not sanctioned, then the act becomes an expression of love to the prince. The conscience requires honing, best accomplished by correct choices. It taps into the strength of our Lord.

This is why the use of the word marriage between same sex individuals is misplaced. If God’s criteria is not met, then the act is categorized has any other performed for the prince through cult ritual, and it will surely be he that presides. Now the couple find their act is compounded has God had warned, since one can only worship God.

It should be remembered also that anyone who advances their cause and aligns himself against the Church shares their guilt.

Andy

I have no idea about the relevance of your post.

 

[davidv]

Yes, but such promise is not rational. We cannot foresee the future, therefore such an unconditional promise is beautiful, but unrealistic.

How does the unforseen nature of the future make this promise irrational? It is only unrealistic if you don’t really mean it. In that case it not an expression of love, but off convenience.

Yes, but that is not a surprise. Biologically, males and females have different “preconditioning”. For the male it is optimal startegy to spread his “seed” in as wide a circle as he can. For the female (who has the burden to raising the children) it is optimal to have one mate and provider for the sake of the children. We are a few hundreds of thousands of years from our ancestors, but biology is a persistent factor.

Fortunately for most, humans are better than animals, we don’t have to be slaves to our desires.

And if the couple decides that they do not want children (not infrequent these days) and they do not expect fidelity from each other, then it becomes their business. They may not make the best choice, but it is their choice. As far as I am concerned, there is only one positive right: the right to make bad decisions - and carry the consequences.

Agreed. Too bad the answer is not forthcoming.

I love it!

 

[Spock]

How does the unforseen nature of the future make this promise irrational? It is only unrealistic if you don’t really mean it. In that case it not an expression of love, but off convenience.

They may really mean it. Yet unable to deliver. Nothing rational about making promises if you are unable to make sure that you will be able to fulfill them. How can you make such an assessment, that it is not love but convenience? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

Fortunately for most, humans are better than animals, we don’t have to be slaves to our desires.

Yet, our animal ancestry plays a huge part in our behavior.

 

[davidv]

They may really mean it. Yet unable to deliver. Nothing rational about making promises if you are unable to make sure that you will be able to fulfill them. How can you make such an assessment, that it is not love but convenience? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous?

How so? If I promise my boss that no matter what, I will will finish a project for him by noon tomorrow, is this an irrational promise? Lets assume that I have of 2 hours work to do to complete it. Would you agree this is a rational promise?

Now, what if I’m involved in 6 car pileup on the freeway on the way home tonight, like the one I witnessed last night, and I’m hospitalized with serious injuries. I am no longer unable to fulfill my promise. Did this unforeseen event suddenly change my promise from rational to irrational? I think not.

Likewise, in the marriage promise the possibility of unforeseen events cannot change the rationality of the original promise. Its rationality must stand on it own merits at the time it is made.

Yet, our animal ancestry plays a huge part in our behavior.

Nonetheless it will not be in control if we choose otherwise.

 

[Spock]

How so? If I promise my boss that no matter what, I will will finish a project for him by noon tomorrow, is this an irrational promise? Lets assume that I have of 2 hours work to do to complete it. Would you agree this is a rational promise?

No, I don’t. No promises are rational unless you have **full control **over it - which pretty much never happens. I never made outright promises in the office, I only said that I will do my best to deliver on time. But this is really far out and off-topic.

Of course one must do the best effort to deliver, that is a given.