The four requirements of justifyable pain, suffering or harm

[Momofmyangels]

Or perhaps people are not taking the decision as seriously as they should be.

Or, have a clear understanding of what a sacrament is.

 

[vz71]

Or perhaps people are not taking the decision as seriously as they should be.

How do you mean? Most couples I’ve seen get married–excluding the drunk in Las Vegas types–have been together for over a year and have their reasons. They may not exercise as much judgement as an older, wiser person would… but that comes with youth. I have personally attended dozens of weddings, and only a few seemed like obviously poor choices from the start.

Perhaps you are correct…
I should have also included the below with my response…

Or, have a clear understanding of what a sacrament is.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Yes, you said this. And I remember. The point is that a good parent only allows a limited freedom to the child, only allows the freedom which will teach the child, but will not allow the freedom to make a choice which is fatal for the child.

A good parent will hide the gun in secure place, NOT leave it out in plain view, and tell the child: “don’t touch it”. Freedom is never absolute, it is always limited. The child should be always allowed to make meaningful, free choices, as long as the “bad choice” is not a “fatal choice”. If the bad choice will lead them to grow in understanding without destroying them.

And that is not what God did in the Garden of Eden. He willfully left the tree in plain sight, and issued a “warning”. If that is what “love” is, who needs “hate”?

Yes, you are right. A human parent would attempt to allow a limited freedom upon a child. God is not human. His reasoning is beyond our comprehension. Can it not suffice to know that because He is not human, does not think or act like us that we could not even come close to comprehending Him? Can it not suffice to know that since He is God, we can just leave what we do not understand in His hands?

Absolute freedom is **never ** limited. Perhaps in the human mind, we always attach some limitations to it, but God doesn’t. The choices we make are our own, He does not force them upon us.

 

[Spock]

Just because not all Christians or Catholics agree on what the rules are, it does not make them unclear. Actually the Church is explicitly clear on artificial birth control. And just because many Catholics choose to ignore the Churches’ teaching on ABC, or anything else for that matter, it does not mean that those teachings are unclear. It means that some people have chosen not to follow them because they interfere with their plans. You do see this, don’t you?

And, I never said I spoke for God, I would not even presume to do so. Nor do I speak for other Catholics or Christians. I do however, speak from what the Catholic Church teaches.
And it’s teachings are clear, Spock. Chosing to not follow them does not negate that fact.

The Church may assert that its teaching is clear (which it might be), but the Church’s teaching is not accepted as a valid, clear rule - issued by God. The point is that the Catholic Church does not speak for God either. The fact that many people do not follow the Church’s teaching means that those people do not accept the Church as authority, and they do not consider artifical birth control to be a valid, clear “rule”.

You may say that the rule is clear, and they say that the rule is wrong, not to be followed. So we have two opposing opinions.

 

[Spock]

Yes, you are right. A human parent would attempt to allow a limited freedom upon a child. God is not human. His reasoning is beyond our comprehension. Can it not suffice to know that because He is not human, does not think or act like us that we could not even come close to comprehending Him? Can it not suffice to know that since He is God, we can just leave what we do not understand in His hands?

No, it does not suffice, it is just a cop-out. You, the apologists keep on asserting that you have a correct understanding of God’s nature, when you say that God is “loving” and God is “good”. When I point out that a “loving” person only allows freedom as long as it leads to learning from one’s mistakes (and thus does not allow a fatal mistake) - which so obvious that it really should not be necessary to point out - then all of a sudden our understanding of God becomes unreliable. Don’t you realize this hypocrisy? If our understanding is sufficient to make the declaration that God is good, than our understanding is also sufficient to point out the error of this proposition.

Absolute freedom is **never ** limited. Perhaps in the human mind, we always attach some limitations to it, but God doesn’t. The choices we make are our own, He does not force them upon us.

We make our choices within the constraints God allows. I said that our freedom is never absolute, our freedom is always limited. To allow the freedom which may lead to “fatally wrong” decisions is not the sign of “love”. It is too much freedom.

 

[Momofmyangels]

but the Church’s teaching is not accepted as a valid, clear rule - issued by God.

Not accepted by whom? By those who choose to not follow them? Because as someone else also stated, millions have accepted them as valid, as clear, and as issued by God, through His church.

 

[Spock]

Not accepted by whom? By those who choose to not follow them?

Yes, exactly by those. And they choose not to follow them, because they do not believe that those rules were issued by God. I am talking about Christians and Catholics. If those Christians and Catholics - who all believe in God’s supremacy - would accept these teachings and clear and valid, they would follow them. No believer will risk his eternal salvation by disobeying what they believe is God’s direct order.

Because as someone else also stated, millions have accepted them as valid, as clear, and as issued by God, through His church.

Argumentum ad populum.

 

[Momofmyangels]

No, it does not suffice, it is just a cop-out. You, the apologists keep on asserting that you have a correct understanding of God’s nature, when you say that God is “loving” and God is “good”. When I point out that a “loving” person only allows freedom as long as it leads to learning from one’s mistakes (and thus does not allow a fatal mistake) - which so obvious that it really should not be necessary to point out - then all of a sudden our understanding of God becomes unreliable. Don’t you realize this hypocrisy? If our understanding is sufficient to make the declaration that God is good, than our understanding is also sufficient to point out the error of this proposition.

We make our choices within the constraints God allows. I said that our freedom is never absolute, our freedom is always limited. To allow the freedom which may lead to “fatally wrong” decisions is not the sign of “love”. It is too much freedom.

So…then…what you are saying is that you would have God take away our freedom, as we have “too much.” Oh, Spock, you seem to have no true understanding of God. Many here have described Him to you as Love, a love we cannot even comprehend. You twist it and say it is hate rather than love. Perhaps the issue at hand here is your definitions of love and freedom. Since it has been discussed ad nauseam, I’ll not go there again, but perhaps you may wish to look at them a little further.

 

[davidv]

Yes, exactly by those. And they choose not to follow them, because they do not believe that those rules were issued by God. I am talking about Christians and Catholics. If those Christians and Catholics - who all believe in God’s supremacy - would accept these teachings and clear and valid, they would follow them. No believer will risk his eternal salvation by disobeying what they believe is God’s direct order.

Argumentum ad populum.

Why the double standard? You used the same form of argument in post #67. Are you now admitting to committing the same fallacy there?

 

[Momofmyangels]

Yes, exactly by those. And they choose not to follow them, because they do not believe that those rules were issued by God. I am talking about Christians and Catholics. If those Christians and Catholics - who all believe in God’s supremacy - would accept these teachings and clear and valid, they would follow them. No believer will risk his eternal salvation by disobeying what they believe is God’s direct order.

Argumentum ad populum.

These people pick and choose which rules to follow. Some they do, some they don’t. How can anyone, a faithful Christian or Catholic, call yourself faithful and pick and choose which rules to follow? Who gets to decide which rules are authentic and which rules are voluntary? Why on earth would the Church set forth a set of rules and leave it up to us to decide which are worthy of following and which are optional? Make sense? It all goes back to an individual choosing to follow them or not, according to whether they fit in with their plans or not. You cannot pick and choose. They are not optional.

And the Argumentum ad populum…absolutely, and right back at you. How can you say that just because many Christians and Catholics choose to not follow the rules, then they must not be clear or valid…Argumentum ad populum!

 

[vz71]

You may say that the rule is clear, and they say that the rule is wrong, not to be followed. So we have two opposing opinions.

And we also have an ad populum argument.

The popularity of the rules does not effect how clearly written they are.

 

[Spock]

So…then…what you are saying is that you would have God take away our freedom, as we have “too much.”

Can’t you understand what I am actually saying? I said that God should take away the freedom to make fatal choices. Not all choices, only the fatal ones. To allow freedom to make wrong choices is fine, as long as those wrong choices can be used to learn from them - in other words, those wrong choices are not fatal.

Oh, Spock, you seem to have no true understanding of God. Many here have described Him to you as Love, a love we cannot even comprehend.

If you cannot comprehend it, on what basis do you call it “love”? If you cannot comprehend it, you do not have the epistemological right to call it “love”.

Perhaps the issue at hand here is your definitions of love and freedom.

Love is to act in the best interest of the loved one. That is the Catholic definion. Freedom is to be able to do something. To be free to commit a fatal mistake is not in the best interest of anyone - least of all of the alleged “loved one”. Therefore to allow a fatal mistake is too much freedom - and not love. Can’t be simpler than that.

 

[vz71]

Can’t you understand what I am actually saying? I said that God should take away the freedom to make fatal choices. Not all choices, only the fatal ones. To allow freedom to make wrong choices is fine, as long as those wrong choices can be used to learn from them - in other words, those wrong choices are not fatal.

You want freedom without consequence.

 

[Momofmyangels]

Can’t you understand what I am actually saying? I said that God should take away the freedom to make fatal choices. Not all choices, only the fatal ones.

Why? So we can live an easy life? So we can make bad decisions, act immorally…sin and not be held accountable? Is this what you are looking for, Spock? A life where you can choose freely to do as you wish and not be held accountable for your actions?

 

[Spock]

These people pick and choose which rules to follow. Some they do, some they don’t. How can anyone, a faithful Christian or Catholic, call yourself faithful and pick and choose which rules to follow? Who gets to decide which rules are authentic and which rules are voluntary? Why on earth would the Church set forth a set of rules and leave it up to us to decide which are worthy of following and which are optional? Make sense? It all goes back to an individual choosing to follow them or not, according to whether they fit in with their plans or not. You cannot pick and choose. They are not optional.

And the Argumentum ad populum…absolutely, and right back at you. How can you say that just because many Christians and Catholics choose to not follow the rules, then they must not be clear or valid…Argumentum ad populum!

Obviously you don’t understand the concept of argumentum ad populum. And it is not relevant to the problem at hand.

1. Many people (all faithful Christians) accept that ABC is wrong (supported by the Church).
2. Many other people (also faithful Christians) deny that ABC is wrong.
3. Since no faithful Christian would dare to violate what they consider God’s direct command, those who deny that ABC is wrong do it honestly, and to their best understaning. They do not accept the Church’s opinion in that case.

So where is the clear command here?

Yes, all faithful Christians pick and choose which rules to follow, according to their own best understanding. Some accept the Church’s teaching, and some do not. If the rules were clear and unambiguous, there would be no ground for dissent - among the Catholics and the Christians.

There is no ad populum fallacy here.

 

[Spock]

You want freedom without consequence.

No, I don’t. See below.

Why? So we can live an easy life? So we can make bad decisions, act immorally…sin and not be held accountable? Is this what you are looking for, Spock? A life where you can choose freely to do as you wish and not be held accountable for your actions?

Bad decisions are fine, as long as they lead to deeper understanding and allow one to improve one’s life. It is part of the learning process. We are being held accountable for our actions. And we should be, since that is what learning all about. There is ample amount of possible bad decisions, and ample amount of learning in the scenario I described. To take away the excess amount of freedom (to make fatally wrong decisions) only ensures that everyone will have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

 

[vz71]

Bad decisions are fine, as long as they lead to deeper understanding and allow one to improve one’s life. It is part of the learning process. We are being held accountable for our actions. And we should be, since that is what learning all about. There is ample amount of possible bad decisions, and ample amount of learning in the scenario I described. To take away the excess amount of freedom (to make fatally wrong decisions) only ensures that everyone will have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes.

And when someone has learned what they need to learn and choose to leave God, what then?

 

[Spock]

And when someone has learned what they need to learn and choose to leave God, what then?

What does it mean to “choose to leave God”? Your phrase is too vague for me to understand what you mean here.

 

[vz71]

What does it mean to “choose to leave God”? Your phrase is too vague for me to understand what you mean here.

Actually, it is very precise.
I am referencing the actual choice made and not the result.

Allow me to put in in the vernacular.

What if they gain all of the knowledge they need and still choose to go to hell?

 

[Spock]

Actually, it is very precise.
I am referencing the actual choice made and not the result.

Allow me to put in in the vernacular.

What if they gain all of the knowledge they need and still choose to go to hell?

If God only allows choices which are there for learning purposes - as a loving God would do - then there are no final, fatal choices. Every bad choice is reversible. That is the point. A loving God will never create a hell, which is a one-way establishment. It may be there for learning purposes, and then when the person learned what there was to learn there, then he can “repent” and gets out.

I know that this is not what the Catholic Church teaches. But this is the logical corollary of a loving God. The Church’s teaching is illogical.