My personal take on gay "marriage"

[JB_Brother_4446]

Yes, we would… and we do as much as we can. Just look at the actions of the people, who TRY to make a difference. Some are religious, others are not. But they all want to help. There is no difference between them. The problem is not the “will” or the “desire”, the problem is the ability, the power to make a significant difference. Just visualize yourself… if you had the power to stop the drought in Africa, would you not do it? If you had the power to stop the senseless violence… would you NOT do it? Of course you would…

We are impotent… God is (supposedly) omnipotent.

I apologize if I’m condescing or rude.

See this is the problem with the world. We always complain about violence and hunger and we don’t even lift a finger to help. As a Catholic Christian, I believe that God has given humans the gift of divine liberty, or the freedom to choose. So the problem isn’t with God, it’s with us. God has clearly given us the means to stop violence and end hunger, but we won’t share what we have or stop hating one another.

 

[Rau]

Yes, we would… and we do as much as we can. Just look at the actions of the people, who TRY to make a difference.

What about the non-actions of the rest?

The problem is not the “will” or the “desire”, the problem is the ability, the power to make a significant difference. Just visualize yourself… if you had the power to stop the drought in Africa, would you not do it? If you had the power to stop the senseless violence… would you NOT do it? Of course you would…

You mean “wave a wand”? Something that would not inconvenience me too much? Is that the measure of our will?

 

[Solmyr]

I apologize if I’m condescending or rude.

Don’t even mention it. You do NOT sound either condescending or rude.

See this is the problem with the world. We always complain about violence and hunger and we don’t even lift a finger to help.

Sure we do. Catholic, or Christian, or Muslim, or Hindu, or atheistic, or any other kind or organization or individual effort… there is an outpouring attempt to help. Zuckerman - the founder of Facebook just gave away 99% of his fortune to charity… ninety nine percent!! Or Bill and Melinda Gates, giving billions of dollars to help kids. Sounds rather nice, doesn’t it?

As a Catholic Christian, I believe that God has given humans the gift of divine liberty, or the freedom to choose. So the problem isn’t with God, it’s with us. God has clearly given us the means to stop violence and end hunger, but we won’t share what we have or stop hating one another.

Yes we do. Could we do more? Maybe. But no matter how much we try, we cannot rescue trapped miners underground. We cannot prevent progeria (premature aging), a horrible disease which kills teenagers due to premature aging.

What about the non-actions of the rest?

We are not all equal. Some are more charitable than others. So what? There are still many people who try to be helpful.

You mean “wave a wand”? Something that would not inconvenience me too much? Is that the measure of our will?

That would be nice. After all God needs nothing else, but “wave a wand”… nothing to “inconvenience” him on his “cloud”… and yet he does not do anything.

 

[Rau]

That would be nice. After all God needs nothing else, but “wave a wand”… nothing to “inconvenience” him on his “cloud”… and yet he does not do anything.

You questioned the power of “we”, not God. The collective “we” has the power, but not the will - not if it requires effort.

 

[GEddie]

Are you absolutely certain that animals such a bonobos do not know God? I’m not as convinced as some people that there is some sort of big separation between humans and human nature and the rest of our distant relatives in the natural world despite what it says in Genesis.

As I said long ago in another debate, I’ll believe that sea mammals are our equals before God only after they tap morse code on the GIUK sonar line to ask for equality.

And I’ll believe that about apes when one walks into church to request baptism.

Until then, the issue is one that begs to be ignored, ISTM.

ICXC NIKA

 

[jjr9]

As I said long ago in another debate, I’ll believe that sea mammals are our equals before God only after they tap morse code on the GIUK sonar line to ask for equality.

And I’ll believe that about apes when one walks into church to request baptism.

Until then, the issue is one that begs to be ignored, ISTM.

ICXC NIKA

I agree with your statement. I believe that the “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium to be
a myth. Do you believe in a “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium? If so why?

God bless and thanks

 

[GEddie]

I agree with your statement. I believe that the “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium to be
a myth. Do you believe in a “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium? If so why?

God bless and thanks

No, I believe in human beings. Human beings are by definition, embodied, and by virtue of the body, have a sexuality.

Sexual longings or orientation are not part of the body. They do not, or should not, define who one is.

I find it sad that a human being would self-define by whom they would enjoy having sex with; there is so much more to our life. They are free to do as they see fit, but the society should never have allowed these longings (which should IMNAAHO have remained out of sight) to turn it inside out.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Thorolfr]

No, I believe in human beings. Human beings are by definition, embodied, and by virtue of the body, have a sexuality.

Sexual longings or orientation are not part of the body. They do not, or should not, define who one is.

I find it sad that a human being would self-define by whom they would enjoy having sex with; there is so much more to our life. They are free to do as they see fit, but the society should never have allowed these longings (which should IMNAAHO have remained out of sight) to turn it inside out.

ICXC NIKA

It is interesting all the ways that people self define: black, white, American, Republican, Democrat, etc.

 

[GEddie]

It is interesting all the ways that people self define: black, white, American, Republican, Democrat, etc.

Some of these are forced upon us, i.e., where we are born determines our social rights; the color of our skin literally determines how we are seen by others.

But if sexuality were kept behind the curtain as IMNAAHO it should have been, there would be no sexual self definitions.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lucretius]

So why does the Catholic Church not allow its clergy to participate in this higher good and purpose of the giving of life? Not everyone is cut out to have children.

The Catholic Church does allow this. My pastor at the Ukrainian Church has two cute children even

But more seriously, marriage is naturally very lofty, but virginity is a Divine Value, which of course trumps any mere natural good.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

So do I, my friend, so do I. I would love to see all people have a reasonable shot to live a good, fruitful life… not to die in infancy due to parasites, to malnutrition, to lack of clean water.

As the Bible said about Judas: “It would have been better for him not to be born”. Just like the millions of children in Africa, or Bangladesh, or in other innumerable places. If we, good-willing humans had the opportunity, the ability, the power to give them a happy life, we would.

No, it is NOT good for everyone to be alive. It is NOT good for the victims of senseless violence to be alive. Even if there WOULD be an “afterlife”, with eternal bliss. But that is just a pipe dream, without any evidence.

There are different senses of good. For example, there is a sense where it is good for the world that Judas was alive. God doesn’t suffer evil in which He can’t bring greater good out from. If there is evils in which no greater good does or could possibly come out from, then you will have justified the Argument from Evil

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I agree with your statement. I believe that the “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium to be
a myth. Do you believe in a “homosexual person” as defined by the Magisterium? If so why?

God bless and thanks

The idea of orientation essentialism: that is, of a person who is essentially homosexual or hetersexual, is a nominalism created in the 1800s to justify SSM as a mental disorder. ← And this is straight from queer theorists.

Remember, in ancient Greece, men who engaged in sodomy where mostly married to women they are attracted to, with children.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

God doesn’t suffer evil in which He can’t bring greater good out from.

Do you present this as an axiom, or is do you have an argument for it?

If there is evils in which no greater good does or could possibly come out from, then you will have justified the Argument from Evil

“Does” would be valid, while “could be” is just an empty phrase, unless you can present an actual line of reasons, how that greater good comes about, and how is it that not even God (with all of his omnipotence) can lessen or eliminate the “evil” without jeopardizing the “greater good”.

I had the “misfortune” of wasting time on some posters, who argued like this:
Apologist: You cannot define “goodness” without God. God is goodness itself.
Skeptic: The existence of gratuitous suffering contradicts God’s alleged benevolent nature or “goodness”.
Apologist: But there is no gratuitous suffering! Every instance of suffering brings forth some greater good.
Skeptic: Hmmm. Can you show the greater good coming from the kidnapping, raping and torturing some girl?
Apologist: No, personally I cannot. But since God would never allow gratuitous evil, there MUST have been some greater good… otherwise God not have allowed it to happen! After all God is goodness itself.
I hope you see the horrible logical error in this kind of reasoning. Presenting something as an axiom, and then trying to use it as an argument. By the way, I inserted the phrase “No, personally I cannot”. The actual person would NEVER admit it. He or she lacks the intellectual honesty.

 

[Latinitas]

Do you present this as an axiom, or is do you have an argument for it?

“Does” would be valid, while “could be” is just an empty phrase, unless you can present an actual line of reasons, how that greater good comes about, and how is it that not even God (with all of his omnipotence) can lessen or eliminate the “evil” without jeopardizing the “greater good”.

I had the “misfortune” of wasting time on some posters, who argued like this:
Apologist: You cannot define “goodness” without God. God is goodness itself.
Skeptic: The existence of gratuitous suffering contradicts God’s alleged benevolent nature or “goodness”.
Apologist: But there is no gratuitous suffering! Every instance of suffering brings forth some greater good.
Skeptic: Hmmm. Can you show the greater good coming from the kidnapping, raping and torturing some girl?
Apologist: No, personally I cannot. But since God would never allow gratuitous evil, there MUST have been some greater good… otherwise God not have allowed it to happen! After all God is goodness itself.
I hope you see the horrible logical error in this kind of reasoning. Presenting something as an axiom, and then trying to use it as an argument. By the way, I inserted the phrase “No, personally I cannot”. The actual person would NEVER admit it. He or she lacks the intellectual honesty.

The point of the counter-argument is that it disarms the argument from evil. In other words, the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence, as many skeptics wrongly claim. In other words, evil’s existence is compatible with God’s existence. The existence of God can be proven other ways, besides arguments from degree.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

 

[Solmyr]

The point of the counter-argument is that it disarms the argument from evil. In other words, the existence of evil does not disprove God’s existence, as many skeptics wrongly claim. In other words, evil’s existence is compatible with God’s existence.

Sure. The existence of “evil” is compatible with the existence of an evil or uncaring God’s existence. But not with an omnipotent and loving God. The summary of your reasoning is like:

Rule #1: The boss is always right.
Rule #2: If the boss is wrong, see Rule #1.

No sane person would accept this argument as “valid”.

 

[Lucretius]

Do you present this as an axiom, or is do you have an argument for it?

“Does” would be valid, while “could be” is just an empty phrase, unless you can present an actual line of reasons, how that greater good comes about, and how is it that not even God (with all of his omnipotence) can lessen or eliminate the “evil” without jeopardizing the “greater good”.

I had the “misfortune” of wasting time on some posters, who argued like this:
Apologist: You cannot define “goodness” without God. God is goodness itself.
Skeptic: The existence of gratuitous suffering contradicts God’s alleged benevolent nature or “goodness”.
Apologist: But there is no gratuitous suffering! Every instance of suffering brings forth some greater good.
Skeptic: Hmmm. Can you show the greater good coming from the kidnapping, raping and torturing some girl?
Apologist: No, personally I cannot. But since God would never allow gratuitous evil, there MUST have been some greater good… otherwise God not have allowed it to happen! After all God is goodness itself.
I hope you see the horrible logical error in this kind of reasoning. Presenting something as an axiom, and then trying to use it as an argument. By the way, I inserted the phrase “No, personally I cannot”. The actual person would NEVER admit it. He or she lacks the intellectual honesty.

I don’t really have to demonstrate the God brings greater good out of evil, because the AFE is trying to show a contradict between Christian theology and evil. There are arguments though (like from the Scriptures or from the nature of God contemplated by Classical theists).

Anyway, the crux of the issue is whether gratuitous evil exist. Has the atheist side provided evidence of an evil that is in itself gratuitous? I have yet to see it.

You are correct that a theist can’t demonstrate exactly what the goods are that are coming from this or that evil, but this doesnt prove that the evil is gratuitous, but rather that we humans are ignorant the the ultimate purpose of these evils, which is to be expected: an evil might be fulfilled in the future, and since humans can’t see into the future, we would expect humans, and thus theists, to be ignorant of the purpose of the evil.

What this major point actually demonstrates is just how the AFE is not merely working with the facts of evil, but rather certain ontological assumptions too. For example, for the AFE to actually work now, the atheist has to also slide in the assumption that “this evil will not be fulfilled in the future,” which of course he can’t actually know precisely. Because we don’t know history in full, as well as the full causal patterns of the past, present, and future, no atheist can provide evidence of a gratuitous evil on such a basis, and thus the AFE fails to be demonstrative.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

thomism.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/gratuitous-evil-would-be-good-for-atheism/

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Thorolfr]

Some of these are forced upon us, i.e., where we are born determines our social rights; the color of our skin literally determines how we are seen by others.

But if sexuality were kept behind the curtain as IMNAAHO it should have been, there would be no sexual self definitions.

ICXC NIKA

People also self define as Catholic, Baptist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. So should all religious self definitions also be kept behind the curtain or only sexual self definitions?

 

[jjr9]

No, I believe in human beings. Human beings are by definition, embodied, and by virtue of the body, have a sexuality.

Sexual longings or orientation are not part of the body. They do not, or should not, define who one is.

I find it sad that a human being would self-define by whom they would enjoy having sex with; there is so much more to our life. They are free to do as they see fit, but the society should never have allowed these longings (which should IMNAAHO have remained out of sight) to turn it inside out.

ICXC NIKA

Do you believe that the Magisterium is in error by claiming a group of people have an exclusive SSA?
I do.

God bless

 

[Rau]

Do you believe that the Magisterium is in error by claiming a group of people have an exclusive SSA?
I do.

God bless

The CCC says some people “experience”…, not “have”. And yes, by all accounts, this is true. It’s not important whether you believe it, just that you know that to act on such is morally wrong. And to treat people unjustly is morally wrong.