Love??? Evil???

[JRKH]

(Cont)

Too bad that all this is unproven and unprovable empty conjecture.

Again - this simply represents one world view. What constitutes proof to one is rejected by others.

To visit the sins of the fathers up until the seventh generation is NOT just, by any sensible meaning of the word. However God dispenses “justice” over there - here and now there is no sign of any “love and justice”. We can either extrapolate from what we see and experience here, or we can discard all the evidence and rely of very, very BLIND faith. And this is where the heathens depart from the faithful ones. To have no evidence and still believe is silly, but to have evidence to the contrary, and still believe is … well, let’s just say: “much worse”.

The absolutes with which you choose to speak merely demonstrate your inability to grasp the larger picture.
You say that there is no sign of love and justice…Yet these signs exist all around you every day. You then base your next comment, your extrapolation, on the previous erroneous one.
For if we are to toss out “all the evidence” then we must toss out the evidence of injustice as well as any evidence of justice. Only then can we start from a level playing field.
Then you wind this up with one of your many assertions that belief is “silly” and “irrational”. A belief that you firmly hold to.
And yet - - - here you are…Why?
Why do you seek to engage us - irrational and silly - people in conversation?

That is all fine. There is a great collection of the most important and controversial Supreme Court cases - the title is “May It Please The Court” (cost me 75 bucks ). Naturally everyone felt very strongly about each case, myself included. However, no matter how strongly I agreed with side “A” and disagreed with side “B”, I had to admire the arguments for both sides.

I disagreed with side “B”, but I could never accuse the lawyers of “BS”-ing. They presented well-reasoned, logical arguments without internal inconsistency - the problem was their starting position.
But you see - what you were looking at there were two people arguing within the same system that you yourself also believed in. In other words…the same “world view”… in this case the realm of constitutional law.

So it is quite possible to look at an argument one disagrees with, and still accept that it was well presented. That is what is missing here.

I agree absolutely…and we as Christians have many such arguments among ourselves. because we are able to argue from the same world view.
This is not the same thing between you and I.
In this case - where you have come here as a non-believer to argue with believers…It is (perhaps) like the rebel who comes into court (represented by this Catholic website) and tries to argue that the court is unfair unjust and has no jurisdiction…well - rail away my friend…but unless we can find some middle ground…no headway will be made.

In all of this I find the most troubling aspect to be your oft repeated assumption that all rational people will reject our position…thus summarily dismissing each and every one of us as being irrational.
This is obviously quite convenient for you. For if you were forced by your conscience to concede that perhaps there WERE believers who were also rational then you might also be forced to consider that maybe - just maybe - the world view they present might - just might - have some validity…
But since you choose to keep us firmly enclosed by the “irrational” label…you are able to sit comfortably and confidently in your position and deflect any argument from these “irrational” believers rather than to actually think about and consider the arguments.

So - unless you are willing to accept that there are people who are both rational and believers and then be willing to consider their view points in a deep and comprehensive ways…unless you are willing to do that…there is nothing more that any of us (poor irrational people) can say…And I wonder why you even bother…other than maybe you find it entertaining…

Sorry if the above sounds harsh…but this is what I see…and I’m sure that you prefer straight shooting…

Peace
James

 

[CrimsonThorn]

One does not analyze “love”, one does it, lives it and feels it. When two people express their love for each other (be they married or not, be of different genders or the same) there is NO need to mix it with procreation. It can be, of course, but it is not a prerequisite.

When a couple is infertile, when there is absolutely no chance of conception, the love can still be there. If the uterus was removed, and conception is impossible, there is absolutely no reason to be “open” to something that cannot happen. This “requirement” is absurd!

Love is sitting by the fireside, or looking at the sunset, no need for words any more, because one can start a sentence, and the other one can finish it. Yet, this kind of love is condemned if the physical expression of it is not “open” to an impossible procreation.

That is the point here!

Or, rather, one of the points. If one takes the bible at least somewhat seriously, then God slaughtered children, toddlers, newborns - indiscriminately! God declares that he will visit the sins of the fathers until the seventh generation. That is not “love”, that is unjust and cruel. A just judge never puts the children or grandchildren into jail for the transgression of the father.

The important point of this thread is that you try to bring the “good news” to the world, you attempt to evangelize, to convince the non-christians and non-catholics, how “wonderful” God is, and how “loving” he is. But you speak a language which no one understands. Love is not indiscriminate slaughter, no matter what the transgressions of the fathers might have been!

The actual expression of love, even if “procreation” is not part of it, does not become “disordered” or “mortally sinful”. It is just simple, good, old fashioned L-O-V-E!

Your idea of love is adolescent and based purely on emotion and good feelings. Love is much deeper than that.

 

[down_under]

I am pointing out the SIMILARITIES - namely the mutual LOVE among the partners - which has NOTHING to do with procreation. You are the one who presents the absurd idea that even if the heterosexual couple cannot conceive (for whatever reason!) they are still forbidden to enjoy sex, if it is not “open” to the IMPOSSIBLE conception.

True and irrelevant. I am talking about one specific type of love.

What is “just” about a tsunami, which kills indiscriminately, adults, children, toddlers and even the “unborn”? Yet the catechism (and the dogmas) teaches that God plays an active and integral part in every event. If you point a gun and pull the trigger, it is God who keeps the bullet on its trajectory, and “guides” it to head of the victim. What is “just” about “condemning the children for the actions of the fathers”? What was so very “just” about the flood, which killed everyone?

Ah so God did not love ALL the people, only a small and insignificant tribe? And he ordered that tribe to kill everyone of the enemies, men, women, children? And is this an act of “love”?

Then you did not read the bible. Sometimes he commanded, sometimes he performed it with his own virtual “hands”.

You are in a very bad position to evengelize. Rational people will reject these illogical “arguments”.

Love does not equal genocide, no matter how diligently you try to explain it away. Mutually expressed erotic love is not evil, even if does not include the possibility of conception.

Until you cannot understand these simple principles, your effort to spread the “good news” will stay ineffective. As we are both aware, the Vatican is concerned about the status of the world - and from its point of view the situation can be described by the military expression of “SNAFU”. Gay marriage is just around the corner, abortion stays legal, adultery and fornication are “stubbornly” left out from the law books. Church attendance is down. In Europe religion is all but gone. And it all could be remedied if the irrational and illogical arguments were dropped.

Funny, but I am trying to help you by poining out the problems of your methods. (Of course Cassandra was never listened to, either. )

Again, and I mean no disrespect, but your understanding of the Catholic faith is so filled with misunderstandings that what you say hits me in the head like a 2x4. It really is just strange to my ears because you blame God for things he did not do.

There is a faith that claims that “Reason is not a legislator” that there are no second causes and that God causes everything directly and immediately. Oxygen does not cause cotton to burn God does directly and immediately. Its Called the Muslim faith. This particular world view came into existence about 1000 years ago its why the golden age ended. Catholic believe, and the bible teaches, that ~“God made everything by weight, unit, and measure.” Its the reason science is possible. God made the creation understandable and he expects you to try and figure it out.

This is one of those misunderstandings that Jesus came to straighten out. A bunch of people die in an accident and the lady asks Jesus if they offended God. (2x4 in the head moment) and Jesus has to explain to her the God does not cause everything to happen directly and immediately, it was an accident. natural disasters much of the time are just that tragic accidents. They are not caused directly by God.

Oh, yes and nowhere did I present the idea that if heterosexual people cannot procreate they cannot have sex. This is just a miscommunication or the effect of the lens you are reading with. I said it was okay for the infertile couple to have sex because its not there fault that the very nature of there union allows for procreation but they can’t for whatever reason (nor was it THE point. It was not something done on purpose in my account). In a homosexual union the very nature of the relation is selfish (as selfish as heterosexual people who contracept). There is no giving of oneself. There is only taking of pleasure for pleasures sake. This is “disordered passion”.

this comment about God only loving 1 tribe…again so far off the point. You are looking at it backward and sideways. Its not God who failed to love. Look at what these people were doing. Look at the “gods” they were worshipping. Those peoples did not love God. when human murder becomes worship there is just no room to love the Christian God. Those peoples more over hated God. Proving there hate with constant ritual killing. It was those people who set themselves up against God.

then you…,you are…, love does… these 3 statements are all arbitrarily asserted (no facts to back them up) and based on your opinion alone or misconception. which means I can arbitrarily deny them “your wrong or deluded 3 times”

BUT YOU IGNORED MY MOST INTERESTING QUESTION
What LGBT or same sex marriage or atheist activist did you get these arguments from. Perhaps you are only stating these arguments sort of half way. If you could give us a SOURCE maybe they would make a bit more sense reading them from the horses mouth as it were.

 

[down_under]

Your idea of love is adolescent and based purely on emotion and good feelings. Love is much deeper than that.

Another excellent point I never thought to address.

What in your humble opinion is the purpose of marriage? would it surprise you that in the Catholic world the purpose of marriage is not happiness, fulfilment, or good feelings.

The purpose of marriage is NOT to make people happy. Its to offer the other a helpmate. So when you loose your job, break you leg, or the baby gets cancer you know no matter what “its you and me against the world babe”. Its the kind of love that keeps loving even when you are not happy, and you don’t really like what the other person is doing. Bringing children is a important component of marriage (for the good of society) which helps the couple loose there selfish ends for the kids interest. But the primary purpose of marriage is for 2 people to work together in each others lives that they both might get to heaven where alone neither would have.
You can be happy in a marriage, and sometimes you will. But it beside the point. NOBODY is happy all the time unless they are on drugs. If the point of marriage becomes about being happy you just lost the plot. You just went right off the rail. People don’t stay married for 50 years because they were happy.

 

[Servant31]

OK guys lets not get too hardcore on the guy from his point of view it makes sense, and gang warfare is lame. Tyrl basically its part of faith, if you beleive then it all makes sense, if you dont it doesnt. Again it is a lot of context, and the world does have a TON of misunderstandings about catholic teachings. Think of it like this if a doctor tells you “you need to stop eating sugar or youll get diabetes” you believe him. If someone who came from an aborigini tribe never knew what a doctor was their questions might be “who is this guy, why is he dressed like a clown, he wants to stick me with a needle I dont think so, what is sugar, and why does he keep talking.” From the doctors point of reference this aborigini is nuts… Neither is irrational innately, but comes from very different points of view and understandings. Also know that the bible is often times not literal, but context needs to be understood to really understand. Thats why catholics often get frustrated with media. Somehow not believe in EMBRYONIC stem cells is reported that we hate science, democrats, mathematics…

 

[Newbie2]

One does not analyze “love”, one does it, lives it and feels it.

So nobody should analyze “love” the way that the NAMBLA supports, we should just smile and say “how nice that they love each other”/

 

[Newbie2]

Love is sitting by the fireside, or looking at the sunset, no need for words any more, because one can start a sentence, and the other one can finish it. Yet, this kind of love is condemned if the physical expression of it is not “open” to an impossible procreation.

That is the point here!

If that’s the point, then you are sorely mistaken on what is or is not condemned. The act of contraception is condemned, not “sitting by the fireside, or looking at the sunset, no need for words any more, because one can start a sentence, and the other one can finish it.”. The physical expression isn’t even condemned, unless it’s “modified” in order to go against the possibility of conception.

 

[manualman]

Part of the problem here is that the OP uses the Hollywood definition of “love” and can’t reconcile it with the reality of the world he perceives. This is not irrational, just uninformed.

“Love” as used in the bible has very little to do with a gushy feeling inside and feeling all warm and tingly all over. That’s just infatuation, or possible (at best) the “eros” version of love. Eros (root word of erotic) isn’t the version of love usually used in the bible. The vast majority of the times the word ‘love’ is used in the bible, the actual meaning is a self-sacrificial decision to place the wellbeing of the beloved above one’s own interests and desires. In other words, our culture’s definition of love is largely selfish, about the gratifying feeling one gets. Love in God’s sense is about making sacrifices for the sake of the beloved.

The other problem the OP makes is failure to comprehend that God is rather MORE than he is. Many of us make the mistake of seeing God as a man with a big stick. But God is not just a very tough guy, He is outside of time and space itself. We humans can never justify the destruction of an entire city of people (man, woman and child) because we have only a tiny window on eternal truths. God, on the other hand, is outside of time itself and knows the eternal destiny of every man, woman and child. If He cause an entire population to be destroyed, it was because they were all going to be destroyed ANYWAYS as a result of their own sins. GOD can morally make those decisions because he knows the outcomes. Humans can’t.

But since the OP is clearly vastly smarter than all of us, there’s no point arguing with him.

 

[Tyrion]

Part of the problem here is that the OP uses the Hollywood definition of “love” and can’t reconcile it with the reality of the world he perceives. This is not irrational, just uninformed.

As a matter of fact, I am looking at the “big picture”. The love between sexually compatible people is much more than just sex, although it is a very important part of it. It includes caring, looking out for the interest on the other one, friendship, and whole lot of other feelings, thoughts and actions. So you are mistaken in your criticism, more so, since I already clarified my position earlier. Such a complex set of actions and feelings will NEVER become evil, even if the two people involved happen to be of the same sex, or if they are married, but express their love in a manner which precludes conception. This is what I said, and so far there was no rational argument against it. You are just as mistaken as all the others.

Love in God’s sense is about making sacrifices for the sake of the beloved.

Actually, you are the one who uses a narrow definition.

The other problem the OP makes is failure to comprehend that God is rather MORE than he is.

In that case you are not in the position to “praise” God. I do not criticize “God”, I criticize the apologists, who present very weak arguments.

But since the OP is clearly vastly smarter than all of us, there’s no point arguing with him.

Well, you still tried, but failed. Maybe you learned from your mistakes, maybe not.

 

[fred_conty]

God ordered and/or personally performed genocides … and you call God “love”.
Two people love each other and express that love sexually in a method which precludes conception … and you call that act “evil”.

And then you are surprised when rational humans look at you and shake their heads … saying “what is wrong with these people”?

I think what you are saying is that the Old Testiment shows evil tho God is love. That is a fair enough complaint, because actually this complaint was lodged by Marcion about 1900 years ago. Marcion didn’t like the Old Testament because he thought that God was too harsh yet the New Testiment showed that God was love.

Marcion’s solution to his problem was to get rid of the old testament completely and only believe and accept certain parts of the new testament which showed God as love.

I think of Marcion’s solution like a college professor who taught math and didn’t like certain parts of math, so he just got rid of it to make things easy and smooth.

But of course anyone can understand that sweeping things under the carpet isn’t a good answer tho it is an answer.

But to be real, there are different kinds of evil with different origins.

For example, I’m sure you caused your parents grief when you didn’t do what you should have done, and did do what you shouldn’t have done. Yet your parents love you and you love them.
In a sense, this is the proof of love, to love when it is hard to love. And when you were punished, at the time it was difficult to see that this was a way they cared about you. But as you matured, now this begins to open up to your understanding and you are grateful to them for all of it. Not only because it corrected a crooked young tree, but because they cared.

Yet, looking at this at the time you went thru this, you may have had a far different thought about your punishment and them as well. It is called perspective, and it can change.

The God of the New Testament who dies for us, is the same God of the Old Testament. Perspective is what we lack. But in due time we will get there.

Just some thoughts.

 

[manualman]

As a matter of fact, I am looking at the “big picture”. The love between sexually compatible people is much more than just sex, although it is a very important part of it. It includes caring, looking out for the interest on the other one, friendship, and whole lot of other feelings, thoughts and actions. So you are mistaken in your criticism, more so, since I already clarified my position earlier. Such a complex set of actions and feelings will NEVER become evil, even if the two people involved happen to be of the same sex, or if they are married, but express their love in a manner which precludes conception. This is what I said, and so far there was no rational argument against it. You are just as mistaken as all the others.

Quite a confident fellow, aren’t you? It frequently amazes me how confident are those who recklessly disregard what God has revealed and millenia of human experience has confirmed. Go ahead and show God that you know better. Just remember that He warned you about the hot stove beforehand because He loves you, not because He’s a control freak with issues. Someday when you’ve badly burned yourself, I hope that comes back to mind.

Human sexuality is so much more complex than most people remotely suspect. People tend to think they’re brilliant and that everyone who came before was an idiot since they lacked microwave ovens, iphones and jetliners. The opposite is true. We today enjoy the fruit of a thousand years of civilization built on the primacy of healthy family structures and understanding of the purpose of human sexuality and we are busily cutting out the foundation of our society from underneath us. Ironically, we are shouting the slogan of “freedom” while simultaneously enslaving ourselves to our vices. We’re the fools, not our forefathers.

 

[down_under]

As a matter of fact, I am looking at the “big picture”. The love between sexually compatible people is much more than just sex, although it is a very important part of it.

QUOTE]

I notice you made no attempt to respond to post #23 perhaps you missed it.

So I reply to you again. Do you understand the mouthful you just said here. two sexually compatible people. to be sexually compatible they have to be complimentary or the people in question can’t have sex. No giving and receiving of seed. You can do whatever it is you do for pleasure but it is not a sexual union of persons. Which is the defining point of sex. Two people cannot consummate a marriage without being complimentary. Over a millennia of human history shows the sense in this. This is the whole point. No consummation = no marriage. I have tried to say this in a more easily palatable way, but I just could not think of one. Man gives the seed women receives the seed. It is just the basic biology of the human race. Man can not continue to exist without this basic understanding of fundamental human nature.

 

[OxygenMan]

Some people need to learn that sex does not equal love. And there are far higher forms of love than anything you experience with your body. If someone wants to come onto the forum with a poor understanding of scripture, tradition, and God, then sling around insults, fine. But don’t expect to learn anything while you rail against us in bigotry.