Thoughts on the gay cake case

[Peter_Plato]

So this would be wrong? For anyone to do?

Or just for you?

When have I articulated any belief in thought crimes?

Now, 'tis true that I do believe that some thoughts can be wrong. Treacherously wrong. Mortally wrong. Absolutely wrong. Repulsively wrong.

But as for making it a crime…can you point to the post where I expressed that view?

The problem with thought crimes is that all the evidence is fully controlled by the one who stands self-accused. There are no witnesses to the thought crime, except the thought perpetrator. They are a nightmare to try to prosecute. (I understand that God is not limited in the same way as human courts, however.)

The other issue is whether the thought was merely a fleeting one or one long and seriously entertained. The point at which the thought was dismissed would determine culpability, but…hey…who would know (besides God and the perp) when the thought was dismissed unless and until a criminal act was the result?

 

[PRmerger]

Irrelevant.

LOL!

So you believe something without a shred of evidence. Something that defies logic. “Something can come from nothing”.

Interesting…

Sometimes people are inconsistent. “I won’t believe without evidence” and “I believe it could happen, even though I don’t have a shred of evidence to support this!”

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you believe the passage where Jesus said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed an adultery with her in his heart” - then you believe in thought-crime, or if you prefer a “thought-sin”. My point still is that thoughts can be wrong (as you said), but if they are not put into practice they are not a problem.

No, the fact that they are not a problem for anyone outside the thinker does not mean they are NOT a problem for the one having them or for God as the Ground of Being. Therefore, they are still “a problem” on some level of reality - perhaps not for you or your friends, that you are aware of, at least, but who has ever conceded that you encompass all of reality?

 

[PRmerger]

All dogmas are unquestionable - for the Catholics, of course.

Who told you that?

Did you question the person who told you that?

Because your believing that is similar to believing, “I was told that atheists believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism”.

And since I was told that, I now assert that here on the CAFs. “Atheists believe that some vaccines cause autism!”

Kind of dumb, right?

The smart thing to do is to question the person who told you that, and to ask for…er…evidence for this assertion.

You should have done that, PA.

Then you would have been better informed.

In fact, since you are here on Catholic…um…ANSWERS, that sort of implies that there are…Catholic…

wait for it…

wait for it…



QUESTIONS.

Right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

According to my principles the only time that using force is justified is in self-defense (or defense of others), and even in those cases the force to be used must be kept at the minimum. Your mileage may vary.

What is it about the self that needs to be defended?

Do you mean only when their life is at stake? What about their interests or good name?

Isn’t justice about giving each his “due?” And about protecting what is “due” to each person?

How would you determine what is due to each person and what “force” is required by justice to protect the interests of those under its jurisdiction?

How would actual interests be determined except by the nature of what the entity is that is being justly “owed” its interests?

How could those interests be determined absent a clear and definable good or set of goods for that being? A dog is “owed” different interests or goods than a human being precisely because a dog is not a human being (following the principle of justice: to each his due.)

So what precisely are the goods owed to human beings and why?

That question has to be answered BEFORE the rights and interests of human beings can be defended and BEFORE any definition of “harm” or what constitutes “harm” can be presented.

Which does get us back to the gay cake case, albeit by a long and circuitous route; at least not by a circular argument.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no problem with it either. So, please tell me what does “omnipotence” and “omniscience” mean. Precisely. The naïve definitions “omniscience is knowing everything” and “omnipotence is the ability to do everything” will not cut it.

Please give me the mathematical definition of “infinity”.

The naive definition that “infinity is an unbounded quantity” or “something without limit” will not cut it.

Wait, nevermind.

Before you give us your definition of “infinity”, should we assume that Math and Science shouldn’t use it since it’s such an undefined and “tricky” concept?

“Infinity is a very tricky concept to work with, as evidenced by some of the counterintuitive results that follow from Georg Cantor’s treatment of infinite sets.”
mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html

Yes? Or no?

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, that would be the first step. What you propose is way down the line.

Well, then, it’s inutile, as I’ve already asserted, to attempt to give you apologia for the infallibility of the Church if you can’t concede, even for the sake of argument, the divinity of Christ.

That would be like asking me to prove that vaccines are effective when you don’t even acknowledge that medicine is a science. If you can’t even acknowledge that medicine is based on evidence, all other arguments will be useless.

What is a miracle? Something that cannot happen in nature? Something that requires a supernatural cause?

Yep.

The problem: “how do you know what can or cannot happen in nature”?

Can something grow from nothing? That’s something that’s never happened in nature, yes?

There are all sorts of “claims” for miracles. But as we know claims are dime a dozen.

True.

But if even one miracle occurred, it would, indeed be evidence for God, yes?

So it’s odd that you would dismiss evidence for miracles.

But, regardless, we could provide evidence for God’s existence without appealing to even a single miracle.

And I am a rather big skeptic regarding most of the miraculous claims anyway, so it’s a moot point here.

I just find it rather peculiar that you make some sort of “head in the sand” dismissal of evidence.

I have great respect for anyone who says “I will take the evidence and consider it.”

Not, “I will take evidence, except some evidence that I will dismiss for random reason A B and C.”

Again, that’s like saying, “I will consider all evidence for vaccine efficacy, except I won’t take studies conducted by those in the US because I am American and I read a study once by an American who lied about his data.”

 

[PRmerger]

In the matter of the cake, it’s no problem to think that SSM should not be allowed. It’s another thing to actively discriminate against people who are getting married.

Indeed. Which is why I have stated that I have not yet made up my mind on my position on this issue.

The church allows girls of 14 to have sex (it allows marriage at that age if local laws and customs allow it). Would you say that the church is wrong and refuse to bake a cake for a wedding between a 30 year old man and a fourteen year old girl?

Yes. I would say that the Church is wrong if it sanctioned a wedding between a 14 yr old and a 30 year old man.

As far as baking a cake for them, well, again, I have not yet made up my mind on this. It’s tricky when it’s a business. Where do we draw the line?

DH and I once stayed at a Bed and Breakfast that had a placard which said something like, *“If you leave something behind here, we will not call you to let you know. Think about it…”
*
Point being: if you are cheating on your spouse here, we’re not going to blow your cover.

I guess it’s just part of being a business owner–tolerating lots of immorality.

 

[PRmerger]

Adultery is - by definition - cheating. If the other party in a marriage consents to have an “open marriage”, then there is no adultery.

Think about what you said, PA: as long as there are 2 consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their own home, it’s fine with you.

That means you sanction adultery. Those 2 people are indeed consenting.

So be consistent and tell us whether you are good with adultery.

 

[PRmerger]

Nothing special. I quoted the old saying “do not spare the rod”. You asked: “where does this come form”? So I gave you the source.

What does that have to do with our discussion?

Certain things are what they are for no rhyme or reason.

Interesting.

I take it, then, that you are not a believer in Science? You don’t believe we should question why the physical world is the way it is? We should just accept that “certain things are what they are for no rhyme or reason”?

That’s the antithesis of Science.

Odd.

 

[PRmerger]

According to my principles the only time that using force is justified is in self-defense (or defense of others), and even in those cases the force to be used must be kept at the minimum. Your mileage may vary.

Fair enough.

So if someone else uses force for some other reason, it’s right for her? If a man uses force to get his wife into his car, he’s certainly justified since that’s what his “mileage” has determined"?

If you believe the passage where Jesus said: “whoever looks at a woman with lust, he already committed an adultery with her in his heart” - then you believe in thought-crime, or if you prefer a “thought-sin”.

I do believe in Thought Sin. I don’t believe in necessarily Thought Crime.

I already stated that.

My point still is that thoughts can be wrong (as you said), but if they are not put into practice they are not a problem.

Of course it’s a problem. It’s a problem for the Thinker. For example, anyone who Thinks (even if he does not Act) that it would be absolutely wonderful to torture a baby animal has a warped psyche. It’s absolutely a problem, whether he acts on it or not.

 

[minkymurph]

It is a very wise principle.

Here is an old joke for you. I hope you will like it.

An elderly woman calls the police and complains that the couple across the street engages in some disgusting sexual practices, which make her very uncomfortable. Two policemen come to investigate, and when they look at the house, they see nothing objectionable at all. They say it to the old woman, who replies: “Not where you stand, from there you can’t see it”. And she climbs up on top of the wardrobe, grabs the curtain rod, and leans out sideways… then says: “But if you come up here, you will see what I am talking about!”.

Yes, it’s like those people who complain about those disgusting tv shows they know every detail of and watched right to the bitter end. Ever thought of turning it off?
These days you don’t even have to get up.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Who told you that?

Did you question the person who told you that?

The catechism did, right here

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

The smart thing to do is to question the person who told you that, and to ask for…er…evidence for this assertion.

You should have done that, PA.

Then you would have been better informed.

If the catechism is not “informative” to you, then I don’t know what is. Is it possible that I am better informed than you are?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Please give me the mathematical definition of “infinity”.

I just love how you try to avoid answering a direct question, by posting another question instead. By the way it is against the forum rules, too. “Never answer a question with another question. If you don’t know the answer, just admit it”.

If you were a mathematician, then you would know that there are infinitely many “infinities”. The first one is aleph-zero.

So go back and tell me what the words “omnipotent” and “omniscient” mean - egg-zactly (to quote one of my favorite posters).

 

[PRmerger]

The catechism did, right here

Sorry. Your link isn’t working. Could you please use a different source for the Catechism?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The catechism did, right here

If the catechism is not “informative” to you, then I don’t know what is. Is it possible that I am better informed than you are?

That doesn’t amount to unquestioning acceptance. You have every right - indeed full responsibility - for questioning the doctrines until you have arrived at the source and explanation for them, which would be God.

Now you may prefer your ideas to ultimate authority, but then your ideas become your doctrine. Merely because there is a final authority, where the definitive buck stops does not mean you cannot question the reasons for them, provided you do that in a spirit of honest inquiry instead of “Well, I just don’t accept it because it purports to be true.” Why should your limited knowledge and experience supersede omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence and the source of all being? If you choose to stop inquiry at a certain point where your understanding is challenged, that is not the problem of the Church, it would be a shortcoming on your part brought on by your limited capacities.

Why are self-evident truths and brute facts acceptable, but not dogmatic pronouncements?

 

[PRmerger]

The catechism did,

The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.)

LOL!

Where does this say that we must accept it without question?

The Catholic paradigm is well articulated by Cardinal John Henry Newman: " “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

So if you want to say that a Catholic has to accept the dogmas without question, then you have to say that you had to accept a mathematical answer from your professor without question.

Or, you can see it with a more realistic model: just like a math student has to accept the correct answer, and may have to struggle to get the same answer, so, too does a Catholic have to accept the correct answer from the Church, even if he has to struggle to get the same answer.

 

[PRmerger]

I just love how you try to avoid answering a direct question, by posting another question instead.

It’s a use of rhetoric which offers my rebuttal in a pointed way…

It answers your question, PA, but you have to think in the abstract.

The fact that you have no problem with math using the very complex and inexact concept of “infinity” yet somehow have this weird inability to understand omniscience and omnipotence (something even my 12 yr old understands, BTW) is peculiar indeed.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That doesn’t amount to unquestioning acceptance. You have every right - indeed full responsibility - for questioning the doctrines until you have arrived at the source and explanation for them, which would be God.

You confuse “doctrines” and dogmas". Read it here: catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma I am referring to this website, where the same “catechism 88” is declared to be accepted, because it is a “divine revelation”.

Or you can look at Jimmy Akin’s words, here: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-dogma-doctrine-and-theology

In current Catholic usage, the term “dogma” means a divinely revealed truth, proclaimed as such by the infallible teaching authority of the Church, and hence binding on all the faithful without exception, now and forever.

.
I don’t know what could be clearer. I am getting suspicious… is it possible that I am more knowledgeable about your religion, than you are? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Why are self-evident truths and brute facts acceptable, but not dogmatic pronouncements?

Because the dogmatic pronouncements are NOT self-evident.

 

[PRmerger]

You confuse “doctrines” and dogmas". Read it here: catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-difference-between-doctrine-and-dogma I am referring to this website, where the same “catechism 88” is declared to be accepted, because it is a “divine revelation”.

Or you can look at Jimmy Akin’s words, here: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-dogma-doctrine-and-theology

.
I don’t know what could be clearer. I am getting suspicious… is it possible that I am more knowledgeable about your religion, than you are? Wouldn’t that be ironic?

Because the dogmatic pronouncements are NOT self-evident.

There is NOTHING–not a thing–which says we must accept something the Church proposes without question.

That you have been told this, and believed it without any kind of questioning, is telling.

It is curious that you don’t even question the fact that you are on a Catholic ANSWERS forum…an apostolate sanctioned by the Church.

You don’t question the fact that there are THEOLOGY departments at Catholic universities.

You don’t question the fact that there are numerous theological giants in the Church who have been given the title of DOCTOR of the Church due to their questioning of revelation.

You don’t question the fact that the mantra of Catholicism, for centuries, has been Fides Quarens Intellectum.

Sheesh!