It's o.k. if we agree to do it!

[CHRISTINE77]

Hey, I heard this story about two adults in a garden and their consenting to eat some forbidden fruit.

 

[Lochias]

Its not so much that any consensual activity is immoral or not, as it is that it should be allowed for the sake of freedom. Just because you, or somebody from some other religion, thinks something is immoral, does that mean you/they should be able to make it illegal? How would you feel if protestants made a law that praying to saints or Mary is illegal because it is immoral?

A law against praying to Mary or the saints would be illogical. We have logic and proof on our side, whereas your side doesn’t. That may be blunt, but hey, it’s true, no matter how hard you might try to reason it away with faulty logic or just putting your hands to your ears and going “La la la la!”

The fair line, in my opinion, is consent. If people are consenting to something, even if I think it is insane, and harmful to them, why should I be able to stop them if that is what they want to do? If they aren’t harming somebody else, why should that be my right?

Because you and those who think like you are currently blinded, whether intentionally or not, to what is and is not harming somebody else, to one degree or another. That’s how atheism is. The truth is rarely pleasant, but it does set one free.

 

[jmvizanko]

A law against praying to Mary or the saints would be illogical. We have logic and proof on our side, whereas your side doesn’t. That may be blunt, but hey, it’s true, no matter how hard you might try to reason it away with faulty logic or just putting your hands to your ears and going “La la la la!”

That law would not be illogical if Protestants had supreme power, since you are committing idolatry and offending god. You don’t agree with that logic, because you have different logic. But its easy for anybody to just say everyone else’s logic is faulty.

So then is your opinion that Catholic teachings should be the law, because even if people believe in their religion, they shouldn’t be allowed to practice it? That the only cultural actions and practices that we should allow are Catholic? We have countries like that, and they are located in the Middle East.

Because you and those who think like you are currently blinded, whether intentionally or not, to what is and is not harming somebody else, to one degree or another. That’s how atheism is. The truth is rarely pleasant, but it does set one free.

Watch how easy it is to say this right back at you:

Because you and those who think like you are currently blinded, whether intentionally or not, to what is and is not harming somebody else, to one degree or another. That’s how Catholicism is. The truth is rarely pleasant, but it does set one free.

 

[jmvizanko]

Exactly. The next level of sophistication is that right and wrong are whatever is materially equal or fair - you break my toy, I break yours. This of course is a violation of the will of the one on whom the retribution is applied.

Having a libertarian standpoint on morality does not necessitate pure selfishness. Utilitarianism is easily combined with live and let live. Sure I don’t want to ever give away money, but I do to good causes because I believe in the most good for the most people. And sometimes that involves letting people do things that make them happy that most people don’t approve of, if its not doing any harm.

So right away we have yet another refutation of the idea that right and wrong are a matter of mutual consent: to punish someone for a crime is universally approved, yet presumably no one consents to being punished, so there you have a paradox.

Well once a crime has been done, wrong has been done to a person, against the general principle. If you add in utilitarianism, then punishment must be done for the greater good, if it acts as an effective deterrent for doing that action and/or it removes a dangerous person from society.

 

[jmvizanko]

I propose that it is impossible for an individual to hurt themselves, and NOT hurt others around them (society). I believe that, precisely because we are members of something bigger than ourselves (society), that if we are hurt, they (society) are hurt. Much in the same way that my left leg would feel if my right leg decided to injure itself. My left leg would not be very happy about what my right leg decided to do, even if the right leg consented to harming itself.

So should we outlaw rock-climbing, mountain biking, scuba diving, etc? These cause unnecessary harm, even if they do make the practitioner happier.

And, it is truly love of neighbor that compels us to prevent people from hurting themselves. Any other view seems to be ‘I don’t care about them, they can do to themselves what they want.’ I think the gospel message is that we should care about them, and want the best for them, even if they don’t.

Who is stopping you from preaching against rock-climbing, mountain biking, scuba diving etc.? The point here is at what point do you thinking something is bad, based on beliefs that other people don’t share, grounds for you prohibiting that action, even with law?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So should we outlaw rock-climbing, mountain biking, scuba diving, etc? These cause unnecessary harm, even if they do make the practitioner happier.?

The ‘fact’ that you make to justify your logic is flawed.

Rock-climbing, mountain biking, and scuba diving DO NOT cause unnecessary harm. Perhaps what you mean is people FAILING to do these ACTIVITIES PROPERLY is what causes harm. Being a logical individual, I am sure that you have to accept that as fact. And then now using an actual fact to start your logic, then perhaps we should outlaw FAILING to do these things properly, because of the harm that such FAILURE will cause. Much in the same way that we outlaw FAILING to DRIVE PROPERLY. When one drives a car properly, then no harm done. When one fails to drive properly, and injures themselves or others, then harm occurs and THAT is what should be prevented.

Now, if your examples would have been activities that are INHERENTLY or LIKELY harmful WHEN PRACTICED as INTENDED, then I would agree that they should be outlawed. And we do outlaw such things already.

Who is stopping you from preaching against rock-climbing, mountain biking, scuba diving etc.? The point here is at what point do you thinking something is bad, based on beliefs that other people don’t share, grounds for you prohibiting that action, even with law?

I am not talking about beliefs. I am talking about reality. If the reality is that the proposed activity inherently or likely causes harm when practiced as intended, then society has a right to prevent the activity to protect itself.

 

[Lochias]

That law would not be illogical if Protestants had supreme power, since you are committing idolatry and offending god. You don’t agree with that logic, because you have different logic. But its easy for anybody to just say everyone else’s logic is faulty.

It’s easy to say anything. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Catholics are confident for a reason, sir.

So then is your opinion that Catholic teachings should be the law, because even if people believe in their religion, they shouldn’t be allowed to practice it? That the only cultural actions and practices that we should allow are Catholic? We have countries like that, and they are located in the Middle East.

I think we’d have a lot less problems if everybody was a practicing Catholic. However, God isn’t a slavedriver, and will let people learn the hard way if they so choose. Pity for you.

Watch how easy it is to say this right back at you:

Because you and those who think like you are currently blinded, whether intentionally or not, to what is and is not harming somebody else, to one degree or another. That’s how Catholicism is. The truth is rarely pleasant, but it does set one free.

Again, you can say it all you want. But mine’s true, and yours isn’t, and I can back it up.

Your own current views can only be excused by ignorance, whether purposeful or not.

 

[jmvizanko]

It’s easy to say anything. Doesn’t mean it’s true. Catholics are confident for a reason, sir.

And people of other religions are confident for a reason. They just happen to be different reasons than you have.

I think we’d have a lot less problems if everybody was a practicing Catholic. However, God isn’t a slavedriver, and will let people learn the hard way if they so choose. Pity for you.

And I think we’d have less of problems if we didn’t have any practicing Catholics.

Again, you can say it all you want. But mine’s true, and yours isn’t, and I can back it up.

What makes you think I can’t back up my side? This would of course be derailing the topic to go into, but your insistence that everybody else has no case is mind-blowingly arrogant. If there was no case and arguments for other positions, people wouldn’t believe in the other positions.

Your own current views can only be excused by ignorance, whether purposeful or not.

All this statement does is illustrate your high level of ethnocentricity. To call people that do not agree with you ignorant is arbitrarily condescending. You may think your opinions and why you have them are superior, but that does not mean all others are rooted in ignorance. In the end there are arguments put forward from every religion. You may find only the ones that support your opinion as convincing, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t the counterarguments out there that other people find convincing.

 

[cargau]

I’ve heard many people, almost always non-Catholics, insist that no act is immoral as long as it is agreed to by consenting adults.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

Not to be argummentative, but I don’t believe “many folks” actually think that. Rather, I belive that what they say is if an action is commited by two or more consenting adults is “I I don’t want to know about it”. In other words there is no declaration of morality( good or bad) based on consent, there is just an ambivalence. the attitude says, "Its not my problem since no one was hurt…

 

[Lochias]

And people of other religions are confident for a reason. They just happen to be different reasons than you have.

Doesn’t make them plausible reasons.

And I think we’d have less of problems if we didn’t have any practicing Catholics.

Well, as long as you don’t have an agenda or anything…

What makes you think I can’t back up my side? This would of course be derailing the topic to go into, but your insistence that everybody else has no case is mind-blowingly arrogant. If there was no case and arguments for other positions, people wouldn’t believe in the other positions.

You find me to be mind-blowingly arrogant, I find you to be pitiably obtuse. So it goes.

All this statement does is illustrate your high level of ethnocentricity. To call people that do not agree with you ignorant is arbitrarily condescending. You may think your opinions and why you have them are superior, but that does not mean all others are rooted in ignorance. In the end there are arguments put forward from every religion. You may find only the ones that support your opinion as convincing, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t the counterarguments out there that other people find convincing.

I didn’t say everyone’s opinion was rooted in ignorance, only yours about the Catholic Church.