I have been TOLD... so what?

[R_C]

Yes, certainly, SOME actions can be known to be wrong in our society, according to our morality.

Oh, moral relativism Please

Maybe our letter carrier is cute girl, and I would ask: “can I join”? But jokes aside, yes, there are SOME actions we consider “wrong”, because someone is HARMED! This is the most important point: “someone is HARMED”. As far as I am concerned, without explicit harm there can be no problem.

Awful jokes aside, by this reasoning marriage is reduced to a pure utilitarian act, but nothing more. This leads to the disruption of society, and leads to great harm for the spouses and their children. We could go over it for a while, without the need to mention any “spiritual mumbo-jumbo” (but when psychiatrists rely on Freud’s teachings, that’s science all-right, isn’t it), but the point being that you do not seem to quite grasp what “someone is harmed” actually means, nor do you seem to grasp that some things are wrong even if per se they are not intrinsically evil.

 

[Tietjen]

As long as there is a rational and secular explanation, I am all ears. Just don’t give me some “spiritual” mumbo-jumbo.

Says the individual frequenting a Catholic website. I wish that I could relate to how you think, but alas, it escapes me.

 

[R_C]

Actually I read the catechism. As soon as I found some serious logical errors and fallacies, I threw it aside. I am not about to give credence to explicit logical fallacies.

Of course, logical fallacies, right. Sure. That’s such a ludicrous statement: faith includes beliefs in the triune God, in the incarnation of Christ, in His resurrection, in countless miracles, and above all else, in the existence of purely spiritual beings such as angels and demons, but I bet you that is not logical enough for you. Well, then, you proclaim yourself wiser than 1.2 billion Catholics. Happy? Now you are officially entitled to wear this shirt at the presence of Catholics

 

[Trurl]

We have excellent, excellent and lengthy and rational reasons to do what we do. We could speak for hours on why extra-marital or non-procreative sex is not good, even from the purely secular standpoint.

What I have seen along those lines were “less than convincing”. I read a lot of apologist books, Kreeft, Strobel, and quite a few others, and none of them was worth the price of a single matchstick to burn them in a bonfire. All were pure junk, not just irrational but illogical, too - sorry.

By the way, perhaps you are unaware of the fact that there is a clear hierarchy in our beliefs. Thing that we call de fide or veritates catholicae (universal truths) are certain. Other things, such as sententia fidei proxima, sententia certa, sententia communa, and sententia probabilis, are called theological opinions because they are not necessarily infallible, meaning they are right, but that the teaching could be made more accurate in time, etc. and we neither dispute nor reject them, because they are truthful.

Sure, I am aware of them, but these are all useless concotions.

The Church has the teaching authority to say that something is grave matter. But even beyond that, anyone can understand what grave matter is. Life is grave matter. One’s parents are grave matter. One’s wife is grave matter. Even an atheist would be rather upset if someone tried to do something against the safety of these. Just not to the full extent required It is good to have a wise Teacher explain, for instance, just how far does the grave matter of life go, and which things offend it, and why is that so.

There are many things that even an atheist considers a “grave matter” - in this day and age. It is not because the church says so, rather because they can be seen as grave matter regardless what the church says.

 

[R_C]

What I have seen along those lines were “less than convincing”. I read a lot of apologist books, Kreeft, Strobel, and quite a few others, and none of them was worth the price of a single matchstick to burn them in a bonfire. All were pure junk, not just irrational but illogical, too - sorry.

That’s your opinion, your problem. Had you seen what many of us have seen, you’d be red with shame. But since you’re so proud of your “knowledge” (which, by the way, is based on something someone “told you” and you chose to believe), then there’s no point, and even a divine sign would be wasted on someone who reasons as such. Which is why Christ (and the saints throughout history) did do great signs for the people, but for the proud they replied: "a perverse and adulterous generation wants a sign? No sign will be given."

Sure, I am aware of them, but these are all useless concotions.

Follow your own, then, and let’s see if you can do something for the millions aching, let’s see if you can give them some hope, let’s see if you can heal them from terminal illnesses. Let’s see if you can make people renounce to the most beastly instincts and become true workers of peace and charity, always ready to love those in need and forgive those who offend them, all the while being ready to promote justice, a justice that is not based on a time and a culture, but that is rooted on universal values. We’ve always had people who think like you, and we know what these ways of thought lead to. We also know who promotes them.

There are many things that even an atheist considers a “grave matter” - in this day and age. It is not because the church says so, rather because they can be seen as grave matter regardless what the church says.

Of course. Again, we don’t follow things because the Church says it, the Church says it because they are so already.

 

[Trurl]

Of course, logical fallacies, right. Sure. That’s such a ludicrous statement: faith includes beliefs in the triune God, in the incarnation of Christ, in His resurrection, in countless miracles, and above all else, in the existence of purely spiritual beings such as angels and demons, but I bet you that is not logical enough for you. Well, then, you proclaim yourself wiser than 1.2 billion Catholics. Happy?

Nope, those are not logical fallacies, they are pure fanatises. A logical problem is a circular reasoning. Read the very first dogma, and see the problem (if you can). As far is your “argumentum ad populum” goes, you can bring that into a pawn-shop… maybe you can get a few pennies for it, though I doubt it.

 

[R_C]

Nope, those are not logical fallacies, they are pure fanatises. A logical problem is a circular reasoning. Read the very first dogma, and see the problem (if you can). As far is your “argumentum ad populum” goes, you can bring that into a pawn-shop… maybe you can get a few pennies for it, though I doubt it.

Sed quae stulta sunt mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes; et infirma mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat fortia; et ignobilia mundi et contemptibilia elegit Deus, et quae non sunt, ut ea quae sunt destrueret. Iustificata est sapientia a filiis suis. Ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam.

End of the discussion. Added user to ignore list.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Maybe our letter carrier is cute girl, and I would ask: “can I join”?

Yes, maybe you would.

But jokes aside, yes, there are SOME actions we consider “wrong”, because someone is HARMED! This is the most important point: “someone is HARMED”. As far as I am concerned, without explicit harm there can be no problem.

You seem to have everything all figured out. So, why are you here?

 

[fhansen]

Maybe our letter carrier is cute girl, and I would ask: “can I join”? But jokes aside, yes, there are SOME actions we consider “wrong”, because someone is HARMED! This is the most important point: “someone is HARMED”. As far as I am concerned, without explicit harm there can be no problem.

But a sadist might object, claiming that harming someone else isn’t a problem-and, in fact, asserting that harming another is morally good because of whatever benefit the sadist receives. So ‘do unto others…’ could also be looked upon as a purely subjective, relative morality, one that none of us should feel compelled to obey.

 

[Trurl]

Says the individual frequenting a Catholic website. I wish that I could relate to how you think, but alas, it escapes me.

I think it is simple. If you would happen to be curious about the ways and means how do the new-agers think; to find out if there might be something rational behind their ideas, you would - perfectly reasonably - ask them to stop THEIR spiritual mumbo-jumbo about the curative powers of pyramids and special chrystals, and ask them to limit their arguments to secular, rational arguments. Don’t you think that such would be a rational request? I think so. It is rational to seek a common ground.

 

[Trurl]

Sed quae stulta sunt mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes; et infirma mundi elegit Deus, ut confundat fortia; et ignobilia mundi et contemptibilia elegit Deus, et quae non sunt, ut ea quae sunt destrueret. Iustificata est sapientia a filiis suis. Ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam.

Quicquid est latine dictum spectat profunda, etiam si iustum est stultus.

End of the discussion. Added user to ignore list.

Thanks!

 

[Trurl]

You seem to have everything all figured out. So, why are you here?

Curiousity. And since I am not a cat, hopefully it will not kill me.

 

[Trurl]

But a sadist might object, claiming that harming someone else isn’t a problem-and, in fact, asserting that harming another is morally good because of whatever benefit the sadist receives. So ‘do unto others…’ could also be looked upon as a purely subjective, relative morality, one that none of us should feel compelled to obey.

Yes, indeed. That is why the “inverse golden rule” (do NOT do unto others what you would NOT wish them do unto you) is so much superior. The “regular” golden rule is fine for normal people, the inverse one is applicable to psychopaths and sociopaths. Fortunately these people a a mere handful and they do not want to be harmed, they wish to harm others. (Not even real “masochists” actually want real pain, they want make-believe pain to be stopped at their request). But, don’t you think it is telling that you had to appeal to psychopaths and sociopaths to make an “argument” against what I said…? I think it is most revealing.

 

[Trurl]

I would respectfully suggest to get back to the topic of this thread. What constitutes an “awareness” or “knowledge” that an action is a “grave matter”. Puhleze stop the attempts to derail the thread…

 

[Julia_Mae]

Curiousity. And since I am not a cat, hopefully it will not kill me.

Curiosity. I see. About this?

After all how can one take those people seriously who cannot understand the difference between “You know that X” and “You know the teaching that X”?

See, this seems not so much like a curious person looking for an answer as someone rolling their eyes as at the dumb-donkeys who will just believe something because someone else said it.

Kind of like believing James Randi ever had a million bucks to give away, you know?

Ever see American Beauty? Here’s the thing about the whole if it doesn’t hurt anybody it’s okay hypothesis.

We can never underestimate the power of denial.

In essence it’s just how we say I want to have sex anytime I want with anyone I want any way I want… and I don’t want to feel badly about it. Or I want to lie when I want to whom I want whenever I want… and I don’t want to feel badly about it.

Try not to get or give any STDs while you figure it out, okay?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’ve had this same conversation with people before. Most recently it was with some Jehovah’s witnesses that knock at my door (I get a lot of witnesses from the same Kingdom Hall! I feel like I must be on a list of theirs or something!). At what I thought was the end of my conversation with them these two grandmotherly ladies told me that because of my conversation with them I now knew some thing or another about their god. I can’t remember what it was exactly, but that doesn’t matter. I told them "I know that you’ve asserted {x} as fact, but I don’t know the validity of your assertions so I can’t yet say that I know {x}. For me this only puts your assertions among the same ranks as assertions {y} and {z} which you disagree with that I’ve heard from people of other religions "

Oh, moral relativism Please
Awful jokes aside, by this reasoning marriage is reduced to a pure utilitarian act, but nothing more.

I actually question motivations for marriage myself.

The purpose of marriage has changed across time and cultures. It’s had its utility and continues to have utility today. Whether or not it is done only for it’s utility will depend on the people involved. They may have multiple motivations some of which are not utilitarian motivations.
One could arrange marriages for the acquisition of resources, for contractual arrangements, to better ensure the paternity of a child, gain some level of protection, and for many other motivations.I had a roommate in college whose father had sold off her hand in marriage after she acquired USA citizenship; which upped the value he could get for her.

Ideally people that get married will love each other and continue to do so after they are married. This doesn’t always happen (I wonder if, locally speaking, one could even say that it frequently happens). Divorces are not unusual. But an even worst situation that I’ve seen is situations where the husband and wife don’t like each other’s presence but remain married for other reasons (not being able to afford a divorce, being in a culture where divorces are not allowed, keeping up some reputation, so on).

 

[Trurl]

Curiosity. I see. About this?

Among other things.

See, this seems not so much like a curious person looking for an answer as someone rolling their eyes as at the dumb-donkeys who will just believe something because someone else said it.

That seems to be your own personal comprehension problem. Work on it.

Kind of like believing James Randi ever had a million bucks to give away, you know?

The original offer was 10 thousand. Then the “Skeptical Enquirer” and Randi created the foundation, and raised the offer to one million. As soon as someone will be in the position to claim the reward, the question (“do they have that million”?) will become pertinent.

Ever see American Beauty?

No, I do not watch TV, especially junk.

Here’s the thing about the whole if it doesn’t hurt anybody it’s okay hypothesis.

Like what?

In essence it’s just how we say I want to have sex anytime I want with anyone I want any way I want… and I don’t want to feel badly about it. Or I want to lie when I want to whom I want whenever I want… and I don’t want to feel badly about it.

As long as it is mutually agreed upon and no third party is affected, it is NONE of your … business. (Fill in the dots with something that is not allowed to be spelled out. The rules must be observed and obeyed.)

Try not to get or give any STDs while you figure it out, okay?

Don’tcha worry your purty little head about it. You might get a headache.

 

[Trurl]

Translation for the non latin speakers
And that is something like the following

Oh, my friend you spoiled the fun. I was hoping to let the curious ones to figure it our for themselves.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Oh, my friend you spoiled the fun. I was hoping to let the curious ones to figure it our for themselves.

Just for you, since you’ve expressed this within the 15 minute time block during which a post may be edited, I have removed my spoiler. Those that have not yet had their fun spoiled may still enjoy it.

 

[Trurl]

Just for you, since you’ve expressed this within the 15 minute time block during which a post may be edited, I have removed my spoiler. Those that have not yet had their fun spoiled may still enjoy it.

Thank you kindly. And this became my 2[sup]8[/sup]=256 post… something to be celebrated. Especially since 2[sup]7[/sup]*(2[sup]8[/sup] - 1) = 8128 happens to be a perfect number. Life in the world of math is so beautiful!