Is online dating advisable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kelvinf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael_Saint said:
I claim red herring when there is a red herring.

Can you post in the next minute or so what a red herring is, and in your own words? I say next minute because otherwise I will have assumed you just googled it.
Click to expand...
The fact that you are arguing red herring is one itself, and laughable.

No need to be nasty.

My argument stands, apparently you are not reading them openly.
 
agapewolf said:
I didn’t. I said I responded tore down the arguments without red herrings.
Click to expand...
So you didn’t even get to the line referring you back to my argument about the Little Flower’s parents before responding, then, correct?

You see what I am saying about a one-way conversation?

The emotionally-charged knee-jerk responses are not helpful either.
 
agapewolf said:
The fact that you are arguing red herring is one itself, and laughable.

No need to be nasty.
Click to expand...
So in other words, you do not know? If that is how you are going to respond to questions and challenges, this conversation will go nowhere.
 
Michael_Saint said:
So you didn’t even get to the line referring you back to my argument about the Little Flower’s parents before responding, then, correct?

You see what I am saying about a one-way conversation?

The emotionally-charged knee-jerk responses are not helpful either.
Click to expand...
I did get to it, I wasn’t responding to that portion. Just becasue I wasn’t responding to that portion does not mean that I’m not reading it openly. THAT is a red herring.

I’m not giving knee jerk reactions. I am responding back to the exact logic you place as an argument. Not trying to give side arguments, or circle it …using YOUR EXACT LOGIC you give, I lay it out, and it doesn’t follow through.
 
Michael_Saint said:
So in other words, you do not know? If that is how you are going to respond to questions and challenges, this conversation will go nowhere.
Click to expand...
Another red herring.

I know you know what one is, because you have yet to actually respond to my arguments. You are very good at them
 
I refer all other readers to my argument concerning the parents of the Little Flower, in Post #107.

Any other challengers?
 
agapewolf said:
I did get to it, I wasn’t responding to that portion. Just becasue I wasn’t responding to that portion does not mean that I’m not reading it openly. THAT is a red herring.
.
Click to expand...
You are very poor with definitions. I cannot discuss things with someone who cannot define terms.

Citing examples of it without showing why it is an example of it is not sufficient. That does not constitute a definition.
 
agapewolf said:
Again, nastiness. No apparently, you are, because I have been waiting for you to actually respond to my arguments to you. 3 pages later, still waiting.
Click to expand...
Every post like this just continues to prove my point.
 
Michael_Saint said:
You are very poor with definitions. I cannot discuss things with someone who cannot define terms.

Citing examples of it without showing why it is an example of it is not sufficient. That does not constitute a definition.
Click to expand...
I am not defining it for you, I’m waiting for a response from my points, which I still haven’t gotten.
 
At this point, I would invite any reader who cares (and probably none of you do) to look back on the exchanges between agapewolf and Michael Saint, and decide for yourselves.

Time to go pound a little white ball around 4,000 yards of field now . . . :yyeess:

Bless you, agapewolf. :signofcross:
 
Michael_Saint said:
At this point, I would invite any reader who cares (and probably none of you do) to look back on the exchanges between agapewolf and Michael Saint, and decide for yourselves.

Time to go pound a little white ball around 4,000 yards of field now . . . :yyeess:

Bless you, agapewolf. :signofcross:
Click to expand...
Or…you could actually respond.

You drew a conclusion based on a faulty premise. I pointed out the premise was faulty, and you claim “red herring”.

I invite you to actually debate the argument, rather than debate me about whether its a red herring, which is ironically funny. I keep inviting the argument, yet you keep diverting into nasty comments about my skills, about your logic classes, without actually getting to the topic.

I’m still waiting…

Your definition of divine providence is faulty, according to Catholic teaching, I’ve listed catechism, I’ve listed reasons (remarriage after death) this backs it up.
 
Alright, I’ll take a shot at it.
Michael_Saint said:
If you were secular and did not believe in Divine Providence, then I would say the “simple math” argument, the “meeting 10,000 instead of 10” would be a good one.

But if you believe in Divine Providence, in a God who loves you and loves the person He wants you to marry and wants you to meet and marry, then meeting 10,000 people is superfluous and can even keep you from His fulfilling plans for your life.

The mother of the Little Flower was running an errand as part of her lace-making business, and as she crossed a bridge, she ran into Louis Martin. At that very moment, the Holy Spirit told her, “this is the man you are going to marry”.

I don’t think Zelie and Louis would be internet dating. There were dating services and matchmakers then too, but they did not use them.

They are the model I follow. No, I do not internet date.
Click to expand...
I would assume then, that you also do not advocate the use of doctors either. If a person gets sick, it’s up to God to and the Holy Spirit to provide the cure, right?
 
I have presented my definition of online dating which is the only available definition I have come across.
I have said that I doubt whether God expects us to move around searching for our spouses and I also provided other reasons (and a reference to a source) why I wouldn’t recommend online dating.

I also touched on expanding the natural visible society as opposed to doing it via online dating and my points were based on the article Person and Society in the CCC.

I finally defined morality as in the CCC and touched on despair and faith.

My points have been challenged but for me, they hold.
If you think otherwise, the best thing you can do is to post your own definition of* online dating* and clearly present the points why you would recommend it.

I have over done it. I have gone against the cardinal virtue of temperance (which I like so much) by spending too much time on this thread and forum.
I have decided to abstain from CAF for a while to recreate and catch up with the other things I ought to be doing.

We are still in the period of Easter so may the joy of Easter be with you all. 🙂

Peace

Kelvin
 
kelvinf said:
I have presented my definition of online dating which is the only available definition I have come across.
I have said that I doubt whether God expects us to move around searching for our spouses and I also provided other reasons (and a reference to a source) why I wouldn’t recommend online dating.

I also touched on expanding the natural visible society as opposed to doing it via online dating and my points were based on the article Person and Society in the CCC.

I finally defined morality as in the CCC and touched on despair and faith.

My points have been challenged but for me, they hold.
If you think otherwise, the best thing you can do is to post your own definition of* online dating* and clearly present the points why you would recommend it.

I have over done it. I have gone against the cardinal virtue of temperance (which I like so much) by spending too much time on this thread and forum.
I have decided to abstain from CAF for a while to recreate and catch up with the other things I ought to be doing.

We are still in the period of Easter so may the joy of Easter be with you all. 🙂

Peace

Kelvin
Click to expand...
Your definition of online dating is very accurate. Based on that definition, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing immoral about it or sinful about it. We have no reason to believe it is against God’s will or desire for us to do so. Using your arguments one could, as I have, make the argument that in the Bible, Jesus directly healed people, therefore, it is against God’s will to go to anyone but Jesus for healing. You can have your own opinion, it’s true, but the “logic” you use to come to it is shaky at best, non-existant at worst.
 
Bataar said:
Your definition of online dating is very accurate. Based on that definition, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing immoral about it or sinful about it. We have no reason to believe it is against God’s will or desire for us to do so. Using your arguments one could, as I have, make the argument that in the Bible, Jesus directly healed people, therefore, it is against God’s will to go to anyone but Jesus for healing. You can have your own opinion, it’s true, but the “logic” you use to come to it is shaky at best, non-existant at worst.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
kelvinf said:
I have presented my definition of online dating which is the only available definition I have come across.
I have said that I doubt whether God expects us to move around searching for our spouses and I also provided other reasons (and a reference to a source) why I wouldn’t recommend online dating.

I also touched on expanding the natural visible society as opposed to doing it via online dating and my points were based on the article Person and Society in the CCC.

I finally defined morality as in the CCC and touched on despair and faith.

My points have been challenged but for me, they hold.
If you think otherwise, the best thing you can do is to post your own definition of* online dating* and clearly present the points why you would recommend it.

I have over done it. I have gone against the cardinal virtue of temperance (which I like so much) by spending too much time on this thread and forum.
I have decided to abstain from CAF for a while to recreate and catch up with the other things I ought to be doing.

We are still in the period of Easter so may the joy of Easter be with you all. 🙂

Peace

Kelvin
Click to expand...
To say spouse searching or online dating inherently immoral is incorrect. There is nothing in Church documents that say it is or it isn’t. Your arguement about it are a stretch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top