Who says we 'choose' Hell?

[Trurl]

My “educated guess” is that God’s terms are known and have been described, more or less well, in a number of different faith traditions. The description of God’s terms are beautifully summarized in the words of Jesus summarizing all of the Law and Prophets into 2 commandments that revolve around the central principle of Love - selfless love - or Agape. (See Mt 22:36-40).

I am sure you know that I would disagree with this. But, just for the fun of it, let’s say that I accept this proposition. Even in such a case there are two major problems. One is that it is “generic” to the extreme, and as such, pretty useless. (How would it follow that mutual love NOT aimed at possible procreation is a major sin?) One cannot use “educated guess” to accept this, one MUST use blind faith in some self-proclaimed authority.

The second problem is “infinitely” worse. The “directives” (I was careful to use this word) are uttered as COMMANDMENTS (or orders), not as reasonable ADVICES or SUGGESTIONS. Not just that, but there is the THREAT, that if you do not follow the ORDER, you will be eternally PUNISHED for your disobedience… And, if I am not mistaken there is this mumbling about “freely giving your love”??? When the “love” is demanded, ordered and commanded, and underscored by incredible threats? Is that the “freely given” love you have in mind? Even the worst mafioso only demands obedience, but not “to be loved by his victims”.

These are some of the reasons why “educated guesses” do not lead one to christianity.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

My “educated guess” is that God’s terms are known and have been described, more or less well, in a number of different faith traditions.

I think the number of different faith traditions may be part of the problem. They are not all compatible with each other. They don’t all agree on assertions on the afterlife, the “places” to which one can go after dying. Some don’t agree that there is an after life. It much reminds me of what one had illustrated as “The impossible game” (heavily abbridged version, youtube.com/watch?v=Gcw1YEtTQCw time length: 1:15).

Most of the messages that I’ve seen in this thread seem to dichotimize between those who have heard “The Truth” and stuck with it and those who have heard “The Truth” and believed it but decided not to follow it. But I think there are many that have heard various non-compatible assertions all labeled as “The Truth” but haven’t been able to sustain a confident belief that any of these sets of assertions are a factual body of knowledge.

It’s like coming to a fork in the road and finding people that make the claim that their road is the safe one and the other roads lead to death. If you chose a road and found death one could say that you were warned. Though one could say that about any one of these roads. So the warning doesn’t carry much meaning.

 

[JRKH]

I am sure you know that I would disagree with this.

Sure - no surprise there. Your “best guess” is different than mine…Yet I would still guess that our disagreement is not total…

But, just for the fun of it, let’s say that I accept this proposition.
Even in such a case there are two major problems.

OK…Let’s have some fun…

One is that it is “generic” to the extreme, and as such, pretty useless.

Well - I will agree that it is “generic”, but remember that we are talking about an educated guess here and the process of education - that is, increasing the understanding of Love as the governing principle - makes it much less “extremely” generic and increases it’s usefulness as a guide and measure.

(How would it follow that mutual love NOT aimed at possible procreation is a major sin?) One cannot use “educated guess” to accept this, one MUST use blind faith in some self-proclaimed authority.

First allow me to take off my “Catholic” hat and speak just in general terms on this matter.
What you are doing here is immediately reducing Love to a specific thing, that is, sexuality. The Agape Love that I speak of is much broader than this and would be used to guide one in matters of sexual intimacy.
Now - Again note that I am taking off my “Catholic hat” for a moment here…
For the person (non-catholic - non-Christian etc) trying to live a life of “Love” - as in “Love your neighbor as yourself”…and making a decision with their spouse about having children, might very well choose to use some sort of barrier to life…But in their thinking would also be that they would not use something that might not prevent conception but would cause an abortion…
In short, they might make a decision that is different from the teaching of the Catholic Church and yet still be operating within the bounds of Agape Love…as they understand it.

The second problem is “infinitely” worse. The “directives” (I was careful to use this word) are uttered as COMMANDMENTS (or orders), not as reasonable ADVICES or SUGGESTIONS. Not just that, but there is the THREAT, that if you do not follow the ORDER, you will be eternally PUNISHED for your disobedience… And, if I am not mistaken there is this mumbling about “freely giving your love”??? When the “love” is demanded, ordered and commanded, and underscored by incredible threats? Is that the “freely given” love you have in mind? Even the worst mafioso only demands obedience, but not “to be loved by his victims”.

Yes - for the one who is unable or unwilling to “educate” themselves past this, it can certainly be a problem. For such people, they become stymied by these seeming contradictions and because of this they lose focus on what is true…universally.
For - if we set aside all of the images ideas and explanations…and reduce the entire matter to it’s most basic and universal elements…We are left with two options.
These two things are Love and Hate…That which builds up and that which tears down.
Love builds, it creates on many levels.
Hate tears down, it destroys on many levels.

So - setting everything else aside…The wise person (and I believe you are wise) seeking to make the best “educated guess” should choose “Love” over hate.
And having made that choice…they are much closer to heaven…and over time many other things will become clear.

These are some of the reasons why “educated guesses” do not lead one to Christianity.

My “educated guess” led me (back) to Christianity. But I must say that my sojourn away from the faith was most illuminating.
One can be quite surprised by what and where “educated guessing” can lead one.

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

JRKH:

Well - I will agree that it is “generic”, but remember that we are talking about an educated guess here and the process of education - that is, increasing the understanding of Love as the governing principle - makes it much less “extremely” generic and increases it’s usefulness as a guide and measure.

No disagreement from me - in principle - but as usual, the devil is in the details, the “small print”.

JRKH:

What you are doing here is immediately reducing Love to a specific thing, that is, sexuality. The Agape Love that I speak of is much broader than this and would be used to guide one in matters of sexual intimacy.

I do not wish to “reduce” it, but there is no need to talk about all the aspects, since outside the sexual aspects - we have an excellent agreement. I am sure we agree about brotherly love, friendship related love, parental love - all the different kinds of love, as long as there is no sexuality in “mixed” into the love. That is where the disagreement lies. With all due respect, that is where the full blown irrationality of the “hard-lines” manifests itself. Yes, two people can fully love each other even if they are “closed” to procreation, or even if they happen to be of the same gender. It is not true that using contraceptives somehow “withholds” part of oneself - on the very contrary, most people, most of the time do not wish to procreate, and being able to fully concentrate on each other makes their love so much more fulfilling and selfless.

JRKH:

For the person (non-catholic - non-Christian etc) trying to live a life of “Love” - as in “Love your neighbor as yourself”…and making a decision with their spouse about having children, might very well choose to use some sort of barrier to life…But in their thinking would also be that they would not use something that might not prevent conception but would cause an abortion…
In short, they might make a decision that is different from the teaching of the Catholic Church and yet still be operating within the bounds of Agape Love…as they understand it.

You are most permissive here. I very much like your attitude, but it is not what the “hard-liners” would agree with.

JRKH:

These two things are Love and Hate…That which builds up and that which tears down.
Love builds, it creates on many levels.
Hate tears down, it destroys on many levels.

Of course I agree with this. (Though what you say is still simplistic, there is a middle ground, between active love and hate… simple neutral attitude.) But my point is this: as long as something is reasonable (love is better than hate) it is not necessary to make a “commandment” out of it; rational people will accept it without the “threat of punishment”, and irrational people will reject it anyhow. It is not the principle that I find objectionable, it is the coercive method I find problematic. No matter how worthy the message is, if it is “demanded” and not suggested, it becomes demeaning both for the giver and the recipient. Not to mention that the mafioso-tactics is already despicable. The truth is that the advocated method is the “carrot and stick” type: “obey, and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will be punished”. A very primitive method, to be used ONLY with those who are incapable of rational understanding - like the donkey in front of the cart.

JRKH:

And having made that choice…they are much closer to heaven…and over time many other things will become clear.

Not to me, they will not. I start from the principle that God values love. As such why would he consider certain kinds of love “sinful”, just because they are not procreative?

 

[JRKH]

No disagreement from me - in principle - but as usual, the devil is in the details, the “small print”.

Couldn’t agree more. A phrase I use myself quite often.
and “the devil is in the details” is why I like to keep my faith as simple as possible.

I do not wish to “reduce” it, but there is no need to talk about all the aspects, since outside the sexual aspects - we have an excellent agreement. I am sure we agree about brotherly love, friendship related love, parental love - all the different kinds of love, as long as there is no sexuality in “mixed” into the love. That is where the disagreement lies. With all due respect, that is where the full blown irrationality of the “hard-lines” manifests itself. Yes, two people can fully love each other even if they are “closed” to procreation, or even if they happen to be of the same gender. It is not true that using contraceptives somehow “withholds” part of oneself - on the very contrary, most people, most of the time do not wish to procreate, and being able to fully concentrate on each other makes their love so much more fulfilling and selfless.

You are most permissive here. I very much like your attitude, but it is not what the “hard-liners” would agree with.

Fair enough. I’m glad that you agree with me that in the majority of aspects relating to “Love thy neighbor”, we are in agreement. That’s great.

In taking off my “Catholic hat”, as I said in my earlier response, I was doing no more than taking a page from our dear St Paul, who said:
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” (1 Cor 5:12-13)
Now in a sense this might sound quite harsh, but it also speaks to the need to be careful how we approach others.
You are not an “insider” so it is not up to me to judge you.
I can express our beliefs. I can point you to materials to read. I can discuss these matters with you, but that is about it. After that, I can only leave it to God to judge you.

Of course I agree with this. (Though what you say is still simplistic, there is a middle ground, between active love and hate… simple neutral attitude.)

I LOVE simple…It’s hard for the devil to get into details that way…
As for the “middle ground”…If it exists, I think it must only be when one is in “neutral gear”. To me, pretty much anything one does is either “building up” or tearing down"…
but that’s just me…

But my point is this: as long as something is reasonable (love is better than hate) it is not necessary to make a “commandment” out of it; rational people will accept it without the “threat of punishment”, and irrational people will reject it anyhow.

This seems reasonable…

It is not the principle that I find objectionable, it is the coercive method I find problematic. No matter how worthy the message is, if it is “demanded” and not suggested, it becomes demeaning both for the giver and the recipient. Not to mention that the mafioso-tactics is already despicable. The truth is that the advocated method is the “carrot and stick” type: “obey, and you will be rewarded, disobey and you will be punished”. A very primitive method, to be used ONLY with those who are incapable of rational understanding - like the donkey in front of the cart.

The part I bolded above is, I think a very significant observation. Have you considered the development of the peoples to which these commands and such were delivered? You say it is a primitive method…were these not “primitive” peoples (by our standards)?
Even today I would suggest that there are STILL people - even within “advanced” societies who are, as you say, incapable of rational understanding. I know I’ve met a few in my day…

Not to me, they will not. I start from the principle that God values love. As such why would he consider certain kinds of love “sinful”, just because they are not procreative?

This is a good question.
Any specific answer would depend on the specific form of non-procreative “love” you are referring to.
In any event I suspect that you have already read some of the Church’s documents on these matters. They explain things better than I could…

But the bottom line is…for someone who is outside of the Church, if they found their principles on Agape Love…even if their understanding is imperfect, they are far better off than the person who does NOT found their principles on love.
Love will be the core attribute upon which we will be judged before God.

Peace
James

 

[Michael19682]

It seems like a lot of people say that the only way a soul can end up in Hell is if it knowlingly chooses to go there, to be out of the presence of God.

I would like to question this. In the scene of the Last Judgment in Matt 25, the condemned people (who are sent to eternal punishment in the fires prepared for the Devil), in fact, did not realise they were failing to feed, visit and minister to Christ.

Then in Matt 7, those people who say “Lord, Lord” obviously want to join Jesus in Heaven, and, it seems, believe that they ‘knew him’. But they are also condemned.

Then in Luke, the story of Dives and Lazarus. The rich man wants to get out of Hell, to join God in Heaven- but he cannot, even though he repents what he has done.

My point is, this talk of choosing Hell is not really supported by Scripture. No one would actually choose eternal suffering, since suffering, by definition, is what you do not want.

And also- the idea that Hell is simply being out of the presence of God. True, that is part of it. But what about the eternal flames which are never quenched, and the worm which never dies?

It seems to me like the only sense in which saying people ‘choose’ Hell is true is in the sense we choose our actions here on earth, but then are bound to be rewarded or punished accordingly. No one (or perhaps one in a thousand) would actually choose punishment. But we are told the path to Hell is wide, easy and chosen by the many.

Maybe we Catholics are not taking Hell seriously enough anymore.

Please forgive me if i reiterate anyone else’s post. I looked over a few pages of these and saw nothing of what I thought of. I have an illness that for years tormented me with thoughts that I was going to hell, was doomed, etc. It wasn’t until I was confirmed at RCIA by a wonderful group of people that I stareted to read the bible seriously, now.

1. if sin is defined as the willful disobedience of God and if only an unforgiven sin can “send” a person to hell and
2. blasphemy agains the holiest of spirits is that sin as defined in the gospel
3. it is the holy spirit that is sent among us for the forgiveness of sins,
   therefore to repel that spirit is to reject forgiveness and to remain in sin.

To remain in sin is to prefer hell. That’s the mechanics of how a person chooses.
Just as the letter of Timothy says “Love of money is the root iof all evil…” we might say that love of sin is the condition of hell.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How would you know that there is no possibility of repentance? Winston Smith was finally able to “love Big Brother”, when his pain became intolerable.
So you are using a fictional character from a ‘high school classic read’ to make a point about eternity?

I know.

That is not a good example. Adultery (as you described it) is simply a breach of contract. An incorrect and despicable behavior for sure, but it is not “infinitely” bad. Excuse me? A breach of CONTRACT? Nice try, won’t fly. Tell you what, get back to me after you’ve been married and have a few children and let me know how you feel THEN about your wife having a ‘breach of contract’. . .or how your wife would feel if YOU had the ‘breach’.

A proper example would be: you had a mutally agreed upon sexual relationship, which was aimed at having fun only. No other person was involved than the partners, The proper pecautions were used to avoid the possibility of pregnancy. Now, according to catholicism it was a “grave matter”, the people were supposed to have “full knowledge” that it was a grave matter, and yet, they executed the act with “full consent”. Now, the “full consent” was there. However, the people in question reject that it was a “grave matter” - so they do not have “full knowledge” that it was a grave matter. So: “was the act a mortal sin”? PLEASE answer MY question and do not ‘change the rules’. This was NOT the scenario I gave. Please make the response to what I posited and not what you have CHANGED it to be.

They might have been fully aware that according to SOME catholics it was a grave matter, but they reject that particular teaching. Many catholics reject it, too… and these hypothetical people are not even catholics. TRUTH, my dear man/woman, is not determined by majority vote. Truth remains truth even if ‘some’ or ALL Catholics ‘reject it’ just as False remains false even if some or ‘all’ embrace it. Yes, there are moral absolutes. And the minute you try to say, “Wait, that can’t be right” -you’re proving my point. Because the minute you say that there CANNOT be moral absolutes, you yourself are making an absolute statement of denial.

Actually, I would say something different: “There was nothing wrong with what we did. There is nothing to regret. We loved each other, and we expressed that love with our action. What is your problem?”.

So you think it is GOD’S problem? Um. . .um. . .Wow. Just wow.

The Being who created you and offers you eternal salvation, freely, you want to reject for your fleeting physical lusts, and then claim that GOD is the one denying YOU? I mean, even can see this is a classic attempt to try to cast the blame not on the one doing wrong, but on the one who is being wronged (God). And God is a lot smarter than we humans. You can’t fool Him. Don’t even try.

 

[Trurl]

The part I bolded above is, I think a very significant observation. Have you considered the development of the peoples to which these commands and such were delivered? You say it is a primitive method…were these not “primitive” peoples (by our standards)?

In a sense, yes. They had no idea about game theory, which gives one good, objective and specific tools for conflict resolution. Yet, that is not an excuse to use the carrot and stick method. And it is not an excuse to teach such incorrect ideas as “turn the other cheek”. Life cannot be simplified into such slogans. Even if those people would have been incapable of comprehending the finer points (which is questionable, since a good teacher can overcome such technical problems) but then a “continued” revelation would have been is order, according to the growth of our understanding.

This is a good question.
Any specific answer would depend on the specific form of non-procreative “love” you are referring to.

As long as there is an expression of love there, the rest is not important. To twist the original meaning a little: “Amor omnia vincit”.

In any event I suspect that you have already read some of the Church’s documents on these matters. They explain things better than I could…

I did, and rejected them for their irrationality.

 

[Trurl]

So you think it is GOD’S problem? Um. . .um. . .Wow. Just wow.

No, it is YOUR problem. You are the one who keeps on declaring that you speak for God. You don’t.

The Being who created you and offers you eternal salvation, freely, you want to reject for your fleeting physical lusts, and then claim that GOD is the one denying YOU? I mean, even can see this is a classic attempt to try to cast the blame not on the one doing wrong, but on the one who is being wronged (God). And God is a lot smarter than we humans. You can’t fool Him. Don’t even try.

As I said, there is nothing wrong there. As long as the motivation is love, and no one else is beling hurt in the process, there is NOTHING objectionable there.

 

[Jordan_Rizk]

CCC #1037
God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

 

[JRKH]

In a sense, yes. They had no idea about game theory, which gives one good, objective and specific tools for conflict resolution. Yet, that is not an excuse to use the carrot and stick method. And it is not an excuse to teach such incorrect ideas as “turn the other cheek”. Life cannot be simplified into such slogans. Even if those people would have been incapable of comprehending the finer points (which is questionable, since a good teacher can overcome such technical problems) but then a “continued” revelation would have been is order, according to the growth of our understanding.

I’m glad that you have given this consideration.
However, I am disappointed that, while in your previous post you suggest that primitive cultures ARE an excuse for using a “carrot and stick” method, you deny it here.
As for “slogans” and “finer points”…Well as you yourself said…that is where the “devil is”…in the details.

As long as there is an expression of love there, the rest is not important. To twist the original meaning a little: “Amor omnia vincit”.

Well first of all we need to be careful about how we “twist meaning”…lest we twist to our own destruction…(2 Peter 3:16)…

But I agree that where there is “expression of love” the rest is less important.
The question then becomes what constitutes a true expression of true Love?
True love desires the highest good of the other.
Some supposed “expressions of love” do not do that and therefore are not expressions of love at all.

I did, and rejected them for their irrationality.

And yet many have found the Church’s teaching to be quite rational. Isn’t it interesting how different people - each making their best “educated guess” can arrive at opposing conclusions.

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

I’m glad that you have given this consideration.
However, I am disappointed that, while in your previous post you suggest that primitive cultures ARE an excuse for using a “carrot and stick” method, you deny it here.
As for “slogans” and “finer points”…Well as you yourself said…that is where the “devil is”…in the details.

I am not aware that I suggested that, maybe I did not use a clear enough language. I only said that the method (carrot and stick) is primitive, you said that maybe those people were “primitive”. But, let is be as you say, I don’t want to quibble about irrelevant details. Even in that case there is no excuse to “leave” it at that, and “keeping silent” when some additional revelation could have guided us better.

But I agree that where there is “expression of love” the rest is less important.

Very well, let it be “less important”.

The question then becomes what constitutes a true expression of true Love?
True love desires the highest good of the other.

That is fine, more or less. Of course, “desire” is empty without actions, don’t you think? What is the difference (and now we get into those pesky details) between a “truly” loving heterosexual and an also truly loving homosexual one? Or a married and an unmarried one - caeteris paribus, of course? If both cases there is erotic love, there is friendship, there is “putting the other one first”, there is caring for the other one… you name it. I see no difference. Do you? There would be no “natural” procreation with a homosexual couple, but adoption is there, if they want to go that route. Many couples do not care to have and raise children.

Some supposed “expressions of love” do not do that and therefore are not expressions of love at all.

Maybe an example would help to understand what you mean.

And yet many have found the Church’s teaching to be quite rational. Isn’t it interesting how different people - each making their best “educated guess” can arrive at opposing conclusions.

Undoubtedly so. Let me give a parallel.

There are many people who think that the drug-war is a horrible idea, while others think that it is great, and maybe it should be intensified. One of the arguments used by the second group is that “soft” drugs WILL lead to hard drugs. Independent research showed this argument to be false, yet it is not abandoned. And those people are - OTHERWISE - quite rational, but not in this case.

The other example might be that poor, much-maligned masturbation. Those who are against it, will argue that it is a “harmful practice”. Medical research shows the opposite, yet this argument is not dropped. Again, these people are - OTHERWISE - quite rational.

Of course, in both case it is the person’s livelyhood which is at stake. If the drug war would be dropped, thousands of people would be out of their current work (oh, how I wish!), so no wonder that they keep on reiterating their false arguments. And maybe they even believe what they say. But that is not an excuse to deny the actual research to the contrary.

 

[JRKH]

I am not aware that I suggested that, maybe I did not use a clear enough language. I only said that the method (carrot and stick) is primitive, you said that maybe those people were “primitive”. But, let is be as you say, I don’t want to quibble about irrelevant details. Even in that case there is no excuse to “leave” it at that, and “keeping silent” when some additional revelation could have guided us better.

I agree that we should not quibble over such details. I’m glad that you catch on to these things and try to help keep things on track.
I also agree that there is no reason to “leave it at that” when additional understanding (I won’t say “revelation” in order to avoid confusion) would help.
I would offer though that many have tried to express that better understanding - offering different imagery etc for the underlying truths. Yet there are those who cannot seem to get past the “it is written” view. And I’m not saying that what is written is wrong, but only that there might be different, and yet valid, images that can be used to express the same underlying truth.

That is fine, more or less. Of course, “desire” is empty without actions, don’t you think?

hhhmmmmmm…“desire is empty without actions”…A very interesting proposition. Not sure I agree with it…but then I’m not sure I understand it…

What is the difference (and now we get into those pesky details) between a “truly” loving heterosexual and an also truly loving homosexual one? Or a married and an unmarried one - caeteris paribus, of course? If both cases there is erotic love, there is friendship, there is “putting the other one first”, there is caring for the other one… you name it. I see no difference. Do you? There would be no “natural” procreation with a homosexual couple, but adoption is there, if they want to go that route. Many couples do not care to have and raise children.

Yes - the pesky details…

There are so many variables and the specifics of each case can effect culpability - and Like St Paul, I will not Judge those outside the Church. So for the sake of our discussion, I will confine myself to a more “obvious” situation.

Would you agree that it is not “truly loving” to put the object of your love in unwarranted danger or to cause them injury through a negligent act?

**Please consider the above carefully before reading on. **

If you do agree with this, then consider some of the ramifications of sodomy. Very real injury can and does occur from this and there is no “properly ordered” purpose to it. In other words, the body parts involved are not designed for this purpose. Using them in this way is, by nature’s own design, disordered.
The fact that they are not being properly used, and that real injury can result from what is an abuse of their proper use and purpose, means the act is not a loving one…and hence that desire is not a loving one.

Now - as I say this is the most obvious and straight forward of situations. Other things, like sex outside of marriage, I will grant are more open to other understandings and can have, for those outside of the Church, much to do with specific cultural considerations and still pursue a form of “agape” love.
Thus - I stand with St Paul - that I have no place judging those outside of the Church.

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

hhhmmmmmm…“desire is empty without actions”…A very interesting proposition. Not sure I agree with it…but then I’m not sure I understand it…

I thought it will be very obvious. I can desire, or wish the very best for you (you revealed the hard times coming from your wife’s ill health; and IF I could DO something, I certainly WOULD), but since I am not in the position to DO something about it, it is just an empty wish or desire. There is an old saying about such “wishes”: they are just as “beneficial as kissing the dead under the armpit”.

Would you agree that it is not “truly loving” to put the object of your love in unwarranted danger or to cause them injury through a negligent act?

**Please consider the above carefully before reading on. **

I certainly did. And generally speaking I would agree, but there is this HUGE caveat. As long as this “danger” is understood and accepted I see nothing wrong with it. Pointing forward to your next question, if you think about the “outlet” for the birth, it is also “stressed” way beyond the desirable limits, and it can handle the stress just fine. To put someone into danger without their consent would be a very different situation.

If you do agree with this, then consider some of the ramifications of sodomy. Very real injury can and does occur from this and there is no “properly ordered” purpose to it. In other words, the body parts involved are not designed for this purpose. Using them in this way is, by nature’s own design, disordered.
The fact that they are not being properly used, and that real injury can result from what is an abuse of their proper use and purpose, means the act is not a loving one…and hence that desire is not a loving one.

As I said, whatever people mutually agree upon, it is their own business. We may or may not agree with them, and we may or may not wish to imitate their behavior, but that is neither here, nor there. “Love” is very flexible. If two people honestly agree upon having an open relationship or “open marriage”, and live openly and honestly according to their agreement, it is their own business. We are not in the position to pass a value judgment - as you correctly observed. If they consider it “true, real love”, then it is true, real love.

 

[bilop]

A very boring and pitiful attempt to escape your predicament. You know what, as soon as you can prove that there is NO fire-breathing, seven headed dragon in you basement, I will present the proof of God’s nonexistence.

In other words, your disbelief is as much a matter of faith as my belief is.

In the countless miracles attested in Church history, I have mountains more evidence for God’s existence than you have against.

God Bless

 

[zro_x]

In other words, your disbelief is as much a matter of faith as my belief is.

In the countless miracles attested in Church history, I have mountains more evidence for God’s existence than you have against.

God Bless

an atheist doesn’t need evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist. It is up to us theists to prove that he does.

 

[davidv]

an atheist doesn’t need evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist. It is up to us theists to prove that he does.

Proving the point being made. The unbeliever most make a great leap of faith to discount the evidence.

 

[JRKH]

I thought it will be very obvious. I can desire, or wish the very best for you (you revealed the hard times coming from your wife’s ill health; and IF I could DO something, I certainly WOULD), but since I am not in the position to DO something about it, it is just an empty wish or desire. There is an old saying about such “wishes”: they are just as “beneficial as kissing the dead under the armpit”.

Thanks for the clarification here.

I certainly did. And generally speaking I would agree, but there is this HUGE caveat. As long as this “danger” is understood and accepted I see nothing wrong with it.

I’m glad that you agree with me. I understand that we have somewhat different perspectives on the matter. But as a general rule you agree that it is not loving to put another at risk.

Pointing forward to your next question, if you think about the “outlet” for the birth, it is also “stressed” way beyond the desirable limits, and it can handle the stress just fine. To put someone into danger without their consent would be a very different situation.
Then the birth canal expands, it is doing that for which it is designed. Yes there can be problems…but the problems do not come as a result of abuse…that is using it for something it was neither designed or intended for.

As I said, whatever people mutually agree upon, it is their own business. We may or may not agree with them, and we may or may not wish to imitate their behavior, but that is neither here, nor there. “Love” is very flexible. If two people honestly agree upon having an open relationship or “open marriage”, and live openly and honestly according to their agreement, it is their own business. We are not in the position to pass a value judgment - as you correctly observed. If they consider it “true, real love”, then it is true, real love.

The problem with the “mutually agreed upon” idea is that Love, in it’s purest form will STILL not allow for placing the other in danger or risk injuring them. This is because pure Agape Love seeks only the good - the best - for the other person. And if that other person loves you in the same way, they would not wish you to do something that could injure them or cause them to injure you. That is part and parcel of loving the other as you love yourself.

This starts to bump up against the “religious”, “non-religious” line and at the risk of repeating myself, I am not trying to judge or impose. Simply expressing the logic of the matter as I understand it.

For the religious person there is also the factor of the welfare of the soul of the other person in these matters. For the non-religious person - the atheist - the welfare of the soul is not a factor.

It all starts to get quite complicated and difficult to explain…So many variables.
Yet our Lord managed to whittle it down to “Love God and Love neighbor as yourself”.
and I guess that is the best place to start.

Peace
James

 

[Trurl]

Thanks for the clarification here.

You are most welcome.

I’m glad that you agree with me. I understand that we have somewhat different perspectives on the matter. But as a general rule you agree that it is not loving to put another at risk.

As you say, with my prior caveat: “to put someone at risk, UNLESS they are willing to accept that risk”.

The problem with the “mutually agreed upon” idea is that Love, in it’s purest form will STILL not allow for placing the other in danger or risk injuring them. This is because pure Agape Love seeks only the good - the best - for the other person.

I am sure you can foresee the next problem: “even if the very best is not what the other party wishes?”. Should we respect the wishes of the other party, or should we impose what WE consider the best for them? Is the projected outcome something that presents a “minor” problem as opposed to the real or percieved “positive outcome”? (Example: smoking is objectively “bad for you”, but some people consider the negative outcome “worth” the risk? ) I would accept the forceful intrusion (the overruling of one’s freedom to self-determination) as acceptable, IF and ONLY IF the action would be completely detrimental to the person (death according to the atheist view and eternal damnation according to the catholic view). But this is not what the usual argument portrays.

 

[bilop]

an atheist doesn’t need evidence to prove that god doesn’t exist. It is up to us theists to prove that he does.

Who says?

The vast majority of mankind intuitively knows and believes God exists. I say it’s up to the 5% who don’t believe to provide evidence the 95% who do.

I mean if 95% of the world says the sky is blue, and someone comes along saying it’s red, I don’t feel any need to prove my position to him.

God Bless