The "right" to... whatever!

[PRmerger]

My, oh my! Mizz Know-It-All strikes again. How would you know what I am and what I want to be? Share it with us, if you would.

Oh? I suppose you like being frustrated?

I am 100% certain that you would, if you could, choose to eliminate frustration from your life.

And yet you can’t.

Because…?

Why? Why is it again in your atheistic worldview that you cannot eliminate this emotion from your life?

I can tell you that what frustrates you here on the CAFs does not, in any way, frustrate me.

So it’s possible to read posts and feel no negative emotion whatsoever.

And yet you have frustration when you come here.

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to know that what I have asserted is 100% correct, PA.

You are NOT the person you wish you could be.

To wit: you could be a less frustrated person.

And yet…

I am not upset. Sometimes, when I see extremely dumb remarks I feel frustrated.

You cannot even control your own negative feelings.

QED.

 

[PRmerger]

ou are not even able to eliminate moral evil from your own life, or your own family, so how realistic is it that you can eliminate it from the world?

Egg-zactly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In you eyes, but since they are MY priorities, they are none of your business.

This is an angry insult to the priorities of others.

It would be as if I told you that this is a Catholic website with Catholic priorities that are none of your business.

Good bye. :sad_bye:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It would be as if I told you that this is a Catholic website with Catholic priorities that are none of your business.

Naw. That wouldn’t work. Now if you owned the website then I could see that working. But on a related note let’s consider what the forum rules say:

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.”

Keeping in mind that it isn’t always known what will be considered disrespectful to another person.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No, this is the revelation from God.

According to your belief it is. But there is NO objective proof that you are correct.

Clearly not according to your own standards.
On the contrary, God placed man over the earth and commanded that he be a good steward. There is clearly much that can be improved!

You managed to argue against yourself. If there is a lot to be improved, then this is NOT the best possible world. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

No, it does not, but mankind did choose to disobey God, and incur consequences for that choice. Mankind now has a tendency toward sin, which is why creating a utopia is not possible.

Even for God? God could not eliminate even ONE violent act, even if he wanted to?

I am not unique. There are plenty of theologians who believe that what the Scriptures say are true, and that God has many times violated the “laws of physics”.

Of course the scriptures are not “proof”. But I was talking about the laws of logic. Logically contradictory states of affairs. Can God create a stone which is so heavy that even God cannot create it?

The two are not separated, Pallas. Jesus is the Head of the Church, which is His body. We are all members of HIm, and of one another. The Church does charitable works becasue that is what Jesus commanded us to do. It is not we ourselves, but God working in and through us that makes these things happen.

Nonsense. There are many good non-Christians who also do good works. Even atheists! If they do good ONLY because God works through them, then where is our “free will”?

Are you suggesting that mankind, of itself, is evil?

Mankind was created in God’s image. God performed many evil acts, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7. So the evil committed by mankind is “inherited” from God - according to the Bible.

Perhaps there is a better way to say this. You cannot create utopia, even in your own human sphere.

Of course I cannot. I do not have the power to do it. But God could… or could he?

---

I am 100% certain that you would, if you could, choose to eliminate frustration from your life.

100% again… You sure know everything Mizz Know-It-All. Yes, there are many different kinds of “frustrations”. Some are challenging, and give me an opportunity to exercise my mind. Those are welcome. Some are not that good, they come from observing the stupidity of humankind. I would eliminate those if I could, but I don’t have the power. What I can do and do it, is “ignore” those people. There are quite a few of those.

Why? Why is it again in your atheistic worldview that you cannot eliminate this emotion from your life?

Because emotions are NOT under volitional control. Is this news for you?

I can tell you that what frustrates you here on the CAFs does not, in any way, frustrate me.

And vice-versa. I see many posts which make me quite upbeat, but which frustrate others.

Frustration is not all “bad”. It can be stimulating. So I would not wish to eliminate ALL frustrations from my life. That would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. What I can eliminate, I eliminate. And I can live with the rest.

Do you know the serenity prayer?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

And its unofficial continuation:
And grant me the power to hide the corpses of those idiots
Who pissed me off today.
And the foreknowledge of not to step on the toes which are connected to the butts
Which I might have to kiss tomorrow.

 

[guanophore]

Naw. That wouldn't work. Now if you owned the website then I could see that working.

I agree. I think it is a defensive/hositle response, but not an attacking one. And the reader must be mindful that the response was, indeed, produced by us impugning the priorities of the poster.

But on a related note let’s consider what the forum rules say:

“Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.”

Keeping in mind that it isn’t always known what will be considered disrespectful to another person.

I routinely question people about their reasons for being on the forum, especially when their posts consistently indicate opposition to what Catholics believe. Questioning a persons motives can be perceived as disrespectful.

I was musing over the OP yesterday and realized something.

…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, health care, free education, food, drink, shelter, clothing… whatever? Where are these “rights” codified, into which law book? Who enforces these “rights”?

Anyone can declare a “right to whatever”,** but such a declaration is worthless, unless it is enforced.** There are no “natural” rights, “nature” does not grant anyone anything.

There was something about this that did not sit right, and I figured out what it is. Though I do agree, having rights is of limited value when they are not enforced, it is not true that they are worthless.

This truth can be seen most clearly in the experience of African Americans living through slavery in the United States. They did not have human rights, yet when they encountered Christianity, they developed a sense of being valued by God as persons that enabled them to survive. During the civil rights era, it was songs about overcoming persecution by the love of God that sustained them. The pebble that started the avalanche, Martin Luther King, based his polemics about anti-discrimination on the value of persons placed upon them by God, ,even though the United States was not protecting that right at the time.

So belief in one’s value/rights as as human being can change that persons’ perception of themselves, and their way of being in the world, even if those rights are not enforced.

There are no "natural" rights, "nature" does not grant anyone anything.

I think this is an arguable point, but I would prefer to focus here on the “nature” of humankind being made in the image and likeness of God. It is this aspect of our “nature” that endows us with rights. This is also the basis of what you quote in the OP - the “Rights” referenced in the founding documents of the United States.

Rights are social constructs, granted by the strongest bully on the block… usually the nation states. But even those entities cannot enforce these so-called “rights”. Sometimes they are able to punish those who violate these declared “rights”, but such a retribution is worthless to those whose life was taken by some other party, which does NOT respect those “rights”.

Certainly we have a long way to go in protecting and defending human rights. One question might be, why did the United Nations create a statement of human rights.

 

[guanophore]

According to your belief it is. But there is NO objective proof that you are correct.

None that you will accept, only. You refuse the testimony of those present when it was revealed (first hand testimony), you refuse the witness of documented historical events, you refuse the present testimony of those who have been willing to receive the above two…you have painted yourself into a corner that deprives you of accepting the evidence.

You managed to argue against yourself. If there is a lot to be improved, then this is NOT the best possible world. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Ahh, but I can! You see, God knows what we need in order to become the persons He created us to be. One of those needs is to overcome that which is imperfect/fallen. It is part ouf our development. He made us to be “co-creators” with Himself, and the earth is the place where this happens.

Even for God? God could not eliminate even ONE violent act, even if he wanted to?

No, I meant it is impossible for YOU! We do not have the power, as created beings, create other human beings that are free of the tendency toward sin that are free from violence.

 Of course the scriptures are not "proof". But I was talking about the laws of logic. **Logically contradictory** states of affairs. Can God create a stone which is so heavy that even God cannot create it?

An interesting speculation, but I cannot see how it is connected to thread topic?

Nonsense. There are many good non-Christians who also do good works. Even atheists! If they do good ONLY because God works through them, then where is our “free will”?

Non-Catholics do good works for a variety of reasons. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world because of what Catholics are moved to do by faith in God.

 Mankind was created in God's image. God performed many evil acts, and admits it in Isaiah 45:7. So the evil committed by mankind is "inherited" from God - according to the Bible.

At the very least, the capability to do evil is part of our created capacity.

Of course I cannot. I do not have the power to do it. But God could… or could he?

God has created what humans need most to pursue sanctification.

100% again… You sure know everything Mizz Know-It-All. Yes, there are many different kinds of “frustrations”. Some are challenging, and give me an opportunity to exercise my mind. Those are welcome. Some are not that good, they come from observing the stupidity of humankind. I would eliminate those if I could, but I don’t have the power. What I can do and do it, is “ignore” those people. There are quite a few of those.

This is a good description of why we find ourselves in this imperfect world. We all have the opportunity to improve ourselves by interacting with it.

Because emotions are NOT under volitional control. Is this news for you?

This is true, as is the concupiscence of humankind.

Frustration is not all "bad". It can be stimulating. So I would not wish to eliminate ALL frustrations from my life. That would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. What I can eliminate, I eliminate. And I can live with the rest.

This exercise of free will is part of why we live in an imperfect world, and struggle to discern what influences are beneficial, and which are not.

Do you know the serenity prayer?

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

And its unofficial continuation:
And grant me the power to hide the corpses of those idiots
Who pissed me off today.
And the foreknowledge of not to step on the toes which are connected to the butts
Which I might have to kiss tomorrow.

LOL. I love it.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

None that you will accept, only. You refuse the testimony of those present when it was revealed (first hand testimony), you refuse the witness of documented historical events, you refuse the present testimony of those who have been willing to receive the above two…you have painted yourself into a corner that deprives you of accepting the evidence.

The only evidence you can offer is “testimonials”. In the case of serious, life and death questions the courts will not allow “hearsay” evidence… and for a very good reason. Do you know what that reason is?

No, I meant it is impossible for YOU!

I never said otherwise, because I do not have the necessary power.

Non-Catholics do good works for a variety of reasons. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world because of what Catholics are moved to do by faith in God.

If God USES them as his hands, then they are simply puppets without any freedom. What about the non-Catholics? The point is that there is no sign that God “cares” about us. He does not feed the hungry, does not cure the sick, does not protect the victims. To say that he does all that through the believers (by proxy) is nonsense. All the evil and all the good are performed by humans.

At the very least, the capability to do evil is part of our created capacity.

And that is the worst possible indictment one can say about God. Knowingly and purposefully creating evil both directly and indirectly - through his creatures - is so horrible and despicable that words fail me. I am just a despicable heathen, how does not believe in God. Maybe that is an “insult” to God, though I cannot understand why it would be. But what you say is infinitely worse than my simple disbelief.

If, by some strange reason I would believe in some “supreme creator” who created this whole shebang, I could never believe that such a creator would knowingly and purposefully create “evil”, either directly or indirectly.

 

[davidv]

The only evidence you can offer is “testimonials”. In the case of serious, life and death questions the courts will not allow “hearsay” evidence… and for a very good reason. Do you know what that reason is?

What is wrong with testimonials? Why are they the basis for someone being convicted of a crime and executed?

I never said otherwise, because I do not have the necessary power.

If God USES them as his hands, then they are simply puppets without any freedom. What about the non-Catholics? The point is that there is no sign that God “cares” about us. He does not feed the hungry, does not cure the sick, does not protect the victims. To say that he does all that through the believers (by proxy) is nonsense. All the evil and all the good are performed by humans.

And that is the worst possible indictment one can say about God. Knowingly and purposefully creating evil both directly and indirectly - through his creatures - is so horrible and despicable that words fail me. I am just a despicable heathen, how does not believe in God. Maybe that is an “insult” to God, though I cannot understand why it would be. But what you say is infinitely worse than my simple disbelief.

If, by some strange reason I would believe in some “supreme creator” who created this whole shebang, I could never believe that such a creator would knowingly and purposefully create “evil”, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What is wrong with testimonials? Why are they the basis for someone being convicted of a crime and executed?

I don’t know where do you live, but here in the US second hand or hearsay testimonials are not even admitted in criminal court, much less can conviction and execution be based upon them. In other places, where kangaroo court is practiced, we can see a different approach.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[guanophore]

The only evidence you can offer is “testimonials”. In the case of serious, life and death questions the courts will not allow “hearsay” evidence…

Well, in the “court of Pallas” historical testimony is rejected right along with contemporary testimony.

If God USES them as his hands, then they are simply puppets without any freedom.

No, Pallas. That is not how it works. Do you honestly believe that people are incapable of acting out of charity?

That is like saying that Americans do not send humanitarian aid to other countries, because it is initiated and organized by the government instead of by the people that live on your street.

What about the non-Catholics? The point is that there is no sign that God "cares" about us.

Your refusal to accept the “signs” does not prevent them from existing.

 He does not feed the hungry, does not cure the sick, does not protect the victims. To say that he does all that through the believers (by proxy) is nonsense. All the evil and all the good are performed by humans.

Well, we see it differently, don’t we?

And that is the worst possible indictment one can say about God. Knowingly and purposefully creating evil both directly and indirectly - through his creatures - is so horrible and despicable that words fail me.

Well, I suppose that a state of horrible and despicable appal could be preferable to walking in fellowship with one’s creator, but it seems very sad to me that one would make such a choice…

I am just a despicable heathen, how does not believe in God. Maybe that is an “insult” to God, though I cannot understand why it would be. But what you say is infinitely worse than my simple disbelief.

God created you for Himself, and your refusal to enjoy fellowship with Him is a rejection of His love for you. In HIs eyes, you are not despicable, just lost. A persons’ preoconceived and erroneous notions, when clung to with passion, can prevent one from that fellowship. If we are too afraid to let go of such attitudes and values, we will not be able to embrace the persons God has created us to be.

If, by some strange reason I would believe in some “supreme creator” who created this whole shebang, I could never believe that such a creator would knowingly and purposefully create “evil”, either directly or indirectly.

In His love, God has created you with free will, which means you are able to make this choice.

 

[davidv]

I don’t know where do you live, but here in the US second hand or hearsay testimonials are not even admitted in criminal court, much less can conviction and execution be based upon them. In other places, where kangaroo court is practiced, we can see a different approach.

I think this post missed the point. What is your proof that testimonies of all Catholics are hearsay?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think this post missed the point. What is your proof that testimonies of all Catholics are hearsay?

Whatever you present now is hearsay today. Can you present those witnesses here and now? If not, then whoever presents those alleged evidences operates on a hearsay testimony. In court only the person is allowed to testify, who personally witnessed the events. Since there are no live witnesses of those events today and the court is in session now, all your testimonies are hearsay.

Besides, according to biblical scholars, all the texts in the NT were written down at least 40 years after they allegedly happened.

The basic problem is that all those attempts for proving God’s existence are misbegotten if they are dependent on ancient events. God is alive and well today (according the believers) and as such the apologists should provide current evidence for God’s existence. If you cannot provide current evidence, which can be examined by impartial experts then your case will be dismissed.

 

[davidv]

Whatever you present now is hearsay today. Can you present those witnesses here and now? If not, then whoever presents those alleged evidences operates on a hearsay testimony. In court only the person is allowed to testify, who personally witnessed the events. Since there are no live witnesses of those events today and the court is in session now, all your testimonies are hearsay.

Besides, according to biblical scholars, all the texts in the NT were written down at least 40 years after they allegedly happened.

The basic problem is that all those attempts for proving God’s existence are misbegotten if they are dependent on ancient events. God is alive and well today (according the believers) and as such the apologists should provide current evidence for God’s existence. If you cannot provide current evidence, which can be examined by impartial experts then your case will be dismissed.

I think you are using a very narrow and unworkable definition of hearsay. Are you saying that if a transcript of a trials eyewitness testimony at an future trial it would be considered hearsay?

Evidence has been provided and found wanting by only a minuscule minority.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think you are using a very narrow and unworkable definition of hearsay. Are you saying that if a transcript of a trials eyewitness testimony at an future trial it would be considered hearsay?

If that transcript would be authenticated by the proper methods, then it would be admissible as material evidence - probably. If you would assert that you scribbled down the text but never authenticated it, then it would not be accepted. Though I am not an expert on procedural methods. The principle is valid, however. Second hand testimonials (I heard, that… or I was told…) are not accepted. Can you guess, why?

Evidence has been provided and found wanting by only a minuscule minority.

Miniscule? Most people are not Christians, so they never found the “evidence” acceptable.

 

[PRmerger]

If that transcript would be authenticated by the proper methods, then it would be admissible as material evidence - probably.

Practically everything you believe you believe because of hearsay, PA.

To wit: you say that the capital* of the Philippines is Manila.

You do this because of someone’s testimony. Maybe it’s because of your 4th grade teacher. Maybe it’s because you saw a documentary on the history channel.

But you’ve never authenticated that fact yourself.

I am 100% certain of that for almost every world capital that you declare to be a capital, you do this because you trust in testimonials of others.

*(NB: this is NOT about Manila. Simply extrapolate to any world capital that fits my point.)

 

[PRmerger]

If that transcript would be authenticated by the proper methods, then it would be admissible as material evidence - probably.

Another example of your acceptance of testimonials: you have NEVER, not even once, checked on the qualifications of the pilot who flies the aircraft you or your loved ones have flown.

That’s pretty astonishing, isn’t it, given the fact that you’re trusting your very life, or the life of someone dear to you, based on…what? Certainly not first hand research.

No. You simply trust in the testimonial of the airline that this pilot is qualified.

If you actually checked that your pilot actually passed her exams without cheating, didn’t forge her pilot’s license, actually sat for her test…then we might believe your rejection of testimonials.

But you seem to be having some weird sort of double standard here.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If only I had a dollar for every time these attempts were presented as if they were “arguments”, I would have a nice bag of coins.

Practically everything you believe you believe because of hearsay, PA.

Sure. But I could verify those claims it I wanted to. To accept claims on authority (testimonials) is just a convenient epistemological shortcut. In the “chain” of authorities there is a starting point, where the person can actually demonstrate the claim instead of referring to some other authority.

And that is what is missing in the realm of religion. There are only (self-proclaimed) authorities, and none of them can provide actual evidence for their claims. Actual evidence is something that does not have to be accepted a-priori and which can be verified.

Another example of your acceptance of testimonials: you have NEVER, not even once, checked on the qualifications of the pilot who flies the aircraft you or your loved ones have flown.

Nothing astonishing about it. There are proper protocols in place, and the evidence that those protocols work is all over the place… the lack of pilot errors prove the correctness of those protocols. I have a step-son, who is an airline pilot. He told me about the very rigorous testing methods.

What kind of “testing” methods are applied to the members of the clergy, for example the exorcists? Where do the examiners hold the “test-demons”, which are used for the testing protocols?

And guess, what? In the court of law in criminal cases, hearsay evidence is still not admissible. Can you make an educated guess, WHY? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

 

[PRmerger]

But I could verify those claims it I wanted to.

Except… you don’t. So that’s the same as accepting it for one reason only--you believe in testimonials.