L
LauraMajestic
Guest
Don’t worry, there will be plenty to come
Why do Christians have girlfriends/boyfriends before marriage when it is clearly against the message of Jesus
- Status
F
fpt
Guest
Before all, we have to define each word. What is a girl friend? What is a boy friend? What is the fiançaille? What is the marriage? What is a divorce? What is the repudiation? What is the conjugal infidelity? What is the Pornea? What is the marriage? What are the constitutive elements of marriage? What is the declaration of nullity of marriage? What is the lust? What is a wrong sexual act? What is a good sexual act? What is a wrong sexual thought? What is a good sexual thought? What is a good sexual intentionality? What is a wrong sexual intentionality? In catholicism, each act can be morally wrong or good, in functions of ciscumstances and intentions (seven or eight types of circumstance and intentions.I’ve done some more research on the issue and I can see where I have made a mistake.
YOU ARE ALL RIGHT I HOPE YOU ARE SATISIFIED
1.The “Quis”, the person who has realized the act (who);
2.The “Quibus auxiliis”, the means used (employed);
3. The “Quid”, the act that the person has made (what);
4. The “Ubi”, the place where the person has made the act (where);
5. The"Quando", the time when the person has made the act (when);
6. The “Quomodo”, the manner which the person has made the act (how);
7. The “Cur”, the motives that have motivated the person to perform the act (what for);
8. The “Circa quid”, the matter (material) on which the person has acted;
They are useful in order to identify if an act is moral or not.
“The substance of the act ” is useful for to know if an act is immoral by nature, per se, in itself and of itself. Be careful, not to be puritan, moralist, stricter than the official teaching of the Roman Cattholic Church. How do you analyse the moral theology of Ronald Conte Jr? Do you know him and his theology? Are you on the same line than him about the conjugal sexual morality? Do you use the same methods? Are you a follower of Ronald Conte Jr???
A degree in catholic theology and in catholic philosophy??? Or a degree in christian theology, but not catholic, may be in protestant theology? And, a degree in modern philosophy, not very classical??? What is your intellectual school? What are your intellectual masters? What are your intellectual streams?
Acception of definitions in the truly catholic way?
The good using of the concept of naturality of materiality of act?
The good using of the concept of the naturality of intentionality of act?
The good using of concepts of circumstances or intentions ( 7 or 8) for knowing if one act is moral or immoral?
**
Jesus’ logic is Roman Catholic Logic of pope. Thus Catholic logic of pope is Jesus’ logic. Saint Peter or the Pope is the boss. **
**Marriage is a natural institution invented by God by which a man and a woman enter via a agreement of will, thus it is also a natural contract. Marriage is a covenant like the alliance between God in the first covenant and in the second covenant (olde testament and new testament). Marriage is the reflect of love God for us, in the human fashion. **The fact of making one flesh has two dimensions: the union of bodies and the union of souls (sexed and sexual alterity, and sexed and sexual complementarity between the two gender). **Marriage means liberty of will for the agreement (the interior liberty and the exterior liberty of each one); The total agreement with the object of marital contract and the fundamental obligations, principle effects…etc. Otherwise, no marriage because the declaration of nullity is possible.
**
OF COUSE YOU ARE NOT ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.
SanctusPeccator
Member
K
KP3243
Guest
Someone will be here! Are you an atheist who hates God or are you an atheist who can’t rationalize a supreme being, there seems to be a significant difference among atheists now?Don’t worry, there will be plenty to come
F
fpt
Guest
When I wrote my post, her logic seemed to me to be very near some protestant logics that can be stricter or too much liberal. I ask questions for knowing her intellectual approaches. Only question not more and not less. I would like to know her fundamental reasonnings.Seems your posts are actually addressing Ron Conte instead of LauraMajestic?As LauraMajestic has clearly described herself as an atheist, it escapes all logical deduction how anyone would conclude she would be a follower of Ron Conte (who identifies himself as Catholic)?
In this forum, Ronald Conte is very well know by almost all members of forum? Thus, it was only one example of a catholic theology that can be very strange, in my humble opinion.
L
LauraMajestic
Guest
I don’t hate God. I simply believe there is no evidence for the existence of a religious God and that belief in them is also philosophically illogical. I do not have so much doubts for a Deist God. I’m kind of flirting with Deism at the moment actually but I’m still identifying myself as an Atheist.
Also, I don’t know Ronald Conte. Link me something of him.
F
fpt
Guest
For information:
He is a catholic special thinker. His “theology”, his so called theology is very far away from roman catholic teaching on marital act and the corollaries: his understanding of conjugal sexual morality of catholic teaching is very … no words coming from my mind. If you want to become catholic, for me , it is not a good reading, be careful with his texts.
Have a good time with his blogs !!! Good luck!!!
ronconte.wordpress.com/
SanctusPeccator
Member
Except no indication was given her posts were but a sole reflection of her thoughts (sans any outside religious influence)?SanctusPeccator;10099926:
, it escapes all logical deduction how anyone would conclude she would be a follower of Ron Conte (who identifies himself as Catholic)?Seems your posts are actually addressing Ron Conte instead of LauraMajestic?
When I wrote my post, her logic seemed to me to be very near some protestant logics that can be stricter or too much liberal. I ask questions for knowing her intellectual approaches. Only question not more and not less. I would like to know her fundamental reasonnings.
Ron Conte’s viewpoint is not at all germane to this topic; as such, seems natural LauraMajestic wishes for her concerns to be addressed rather than make unwarranted assumptions?
F
fpt
Guest
Her silence on all my posts of this thread can mean something. What are the deep explanations. By my questions, I am looking for the understanding of the fundamental reasonnings, of the methods…etc. Read all my posts, if you want to understand. Read in the total context.Seems your posts are actually addressing Ron Conte instead of LauraMajestic?
My guess was a mistake.
F
fpt
Guest
From her **" My advice is I have a 1st Class Degree in Theology so you better stop getting so arrogant" **
If a degree in theology??? What type of theology?? catholic theology? protestant theology? Other theology??? She know probably a little bit on the christian world. I hope so.
T
tijeras
Guest
What’s a “religious God”? This is what you say you find no evidence for…just wondering what that can possibly mean.
“Religere”, from which we get “religion”, means “to link things together, tie things together.” Think “ligament”, same root. Religion, therefore, is a system by which we tie all aspects of our lives together in a consistent way.
God, in the Catholic concept, is infinite, is Truth Beauty, and Goodness, God is Love (not in a hokey sense, but the real meaning of love, which is wanting what’s best for the beloved), God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these are mysteries, ways for our finite minds to conceive of the infinite in meaningful ways. God is not Zeus, if that’s what you mean by “religious God”, some angry old man ready to zap people for their sins unless they toe the line. God is pure spirit, neither male nor female (in the Bible, God is often referred to as “He”, and Jesus invited us to be loved by God as children are loved by their Father, according to the understanding of the time. God is also likened to a mother in the Bible. Jesus, incarnate with a human body, obviously had to be male or female, but don’t generalize that to include the whole Trinity). Male and female were together created in God’s image, according to Genesis, not just males in God’s image, as God is not male (in the Hebrew, there is no sexual distinction among humans until after Eve is created - see JPII’s Theology of the Body for more explanation - he does an excellent job of addressing the metaphorical nature of Genesis). God is the Prime Mover, the ultimate cause. He is our Creator (and Catholics, by the way, have no problem with Evolution, if they’ve been paying attention to JPII and BXVI and their statements on Evolution - see Dr. Ken Miller, a cell biologist at Brown Univ. and practicing Roman Catholic, his excellent books called “Finding Darwin’s God” and “More Than A Theory”. Due to the metaphorical nature of Genesis, we’re not scared of science because Genesis is not a scientific text - it’s not saying how, but why, and relating spiritual truths, not physical ones) and our destination.
So what it is about God what you can’t fathom?
You know, rejecting the idea of something because you have no evidence for it seems kind of silly to me, from a philosophical standpoint. Having no evidence for something’s existence is not equal to having evidence that it doesn’t exist. At best, you could say you don’t know whether that something exists, since you have no evidence that it doesn’t. So agnostics, I think, make some sense in that they’re claiming they “don’t know - are without knowledge”, but atheists boggle me because they’re espousing an ideology based on a lack of evidence. “A-theism” means, “without God”,though in modern Western parlance it’s come to mean “against God and all religious people”, as evidenced by atheists’ penchant for going on the offensive. And all because they have no evidence for something.
Prior to meeting any regular person, you have no evidence for his/her existence. Prior to meeting God, perhaps you have no evidence for His existence. But if someone tells you about someone else they know, you don’t then claim that person doesn’t really exist because you have no evidence of his/her existence. So why do you claim God doesn’t exist, based on a lack of evidence? Doesn’t make sense philosophically. At best, you can say you don’t know, that you are “a-gnostic” that is, without knowledge.
Just some things for you to consider. If you are ready to engage in actual dialogue, I think you will find some takers on this forum. I, personally, would love to get to understand the mind of an atheist, provided you don’t go on the offensive anymore.
“Religere”, from which we get “religion”, means “to link things together, tie things together.” Think “ligament”, same root. Religion, therefore, is a system by which we tie all aspects of our lives together in a consistent way.
God, in the Catholic concept, is infinite, is Truth Beauty, and Goodness, God is Love (not in a hokey sense, but the real meaning of love, which is wanting what’s best for the beloved), God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but these are mysteries, ways for our finite minds to conceive of the infinite in meaningful ways. God is not Zeus, if that’s what you mean by “religious God”, some angry old man ready to zap people for their sins unless they toe the line. God is pure spirit, neither male nor female (in the Bible, God is often referred to as “He”, and Jesus invited us to be loved by God as children are loved by their Father, according to the understanding of the time. God is also likened to a mother in the Bible. Jesus, incarnate with a human body, obviously had to be male or female, but don’t generalize that to include the whole Trinity). Male and female were together created in God’s image, according to Genesis, not just males in God’s image, as God is not male (in the Hebrew, there is no sexual distinction among humans until after Eve is created - see JPII’s Theology of the Body for more explanation - he does an excellent job of addressing the metaphorical nature of Genesis). God is the Prime Mover, the ultimate cause. He is our Creator (and Catholics, by the way, have no problem with Evolution, if they’ve been paying attention to JPII and BXVI and their statements on Evolution - see Dr. Ken Miller, a cell biologist at Brown Univ. and practicing Roman Catholic, his excellent books called “Finding Darwin’s God” and “More Than A Theory”. Due to the metaphorical nature of Genesis, we’re not scared of science because Genesis is not a scientific text - it’s not saying how, but why, and relating spiritual truths, not physical ones) and our destination.
So what it is about God what you can’t fathom?
You know, rejecting the idea of something because you have no evidence for it seems kind of silly to me, from a philosophical standpoint. Having no evidence for something’s existence is not equal to having evidence that it doesn’t exist. At best, you could say you don’t know whether that something exists, since you have no evidence that it doesn’t. So agnostics, I think, make some sense in that they’re claiming they “don’t know - are without knowledge”, but atheists boggle me because they’re espousing an ideology based on a lack of evidence. “A-theism” means, “without God”,though in modern Western parlance it’s come to mean “against God and all religious people”, as evidenced by atheists’ penchant for going on the offensive. And all because they have no evidence for something.
Prior to meeting any regular person, you have no evidence for his/her existence. Prior to meeting God, perhaps you have no evidence for His existence. But if someone tells you about someone else they know, you don’t then claim that person doesn’t really exist because you have no evidence of his/her existence. So why do you claim God doesn’t exist, based on a lack of evidence? Doesn’t make sense philosophically. At best, you can say you don’t know, that you are “a-gnostic” that is, without knowledge.
Just some things for you to consider. If you are ready to engage in actual dialogue, I think you will find some takers on this forum. I, personally, would love to get to understand the mind of an atheist, provided you don’t go on the offensive anymore.
F
fpt
Guest
My french logic is not yours. Before asking only without giving your moral analysis, try to read all my posts in context for understanding the system of thought.
Only question from you is very curious. It is not my line, not my way to do. Per se, it is very strange. I would like to wish to know why?
L
lerapt78
Guest
My thoughts as well.
LauraMajestic, just to give you a heads up - Catholics do not follow Sola Scriptura, therefore any scriptural passages to which you refer will more often than not require accompanying context, interpretation, and Traditional considerations to be included in our responses.
If you can acknowledge this from the starting point, it will save you a lot of frustration in the long run - trust me!
SanctusPeccator
Member
As it ought to be, LauraMajestic. Just emphasizing [to ftp] that making premature assumptions where an atheist is coming from (belief-wise) doesn’t exactly help toward a mutual understanding. Everyone deserves a fair and impartial hearing no matter their religious persuasion…fpt;10100028:
, it escapes all logical deduction how anyone would conclude she would be a follower of Ron Conte (who identifies himself as Catholic)?SanctusPeccator;10099926:
Seems your posts are actually addressing Ron Conte instead of LauraMajestic?
Her silence on all my posts of this thread can mean something. What are the deep explanations. By my questions, I am looking for the understanding of the fundamental reasonnings, of the methods…etc. Read all my posts, if you want to understand. Read in the total context.
My guess was a mistake.
Hey I’m not mysterious or anything LOL. You can ask away.
K
KP3243
Guest
Everything that exists has a mover that puts it in motion, therefore there must be a first mover. Everything that exists has a cause therefore there must be an uncaused first cause. Every being finds its necessity in another being; there must be a being with its own necessity, not receiving from another. Everything that exists is a species of a genus, or maximum therefore there must be a maximum cause of being, goodness, and every perfection in all being. Natural things function properly, therefore there must be an intelligent being who directs natural things to their proper end.
SanctusPeccator
Member
F
fpt
Guest
For studying a topic, we need to know the principal fundamental intellectual approaches in order to understand in the good way and to interpret in the good way the moral positions of the official rules from the Holy See. The same, for the catholic thinkers in a large sense, you, me and the others.
Each country was touched by christian heresies, or religious heresies and / or by ideologies. Thus , we are influenced directly or indirectly by them, even if we know that they are wrong, bad and dangerous.
In France, The catharism, the protestantism, the jansenism, the quietism, the fideism, The french revolution with her ideologies, May of 1968, French socialism, the sedevacantism, strong traditionalism (SSPX and his friends), the primary anti-personalism, the catholic progressism, the catholic modernism, the catholic relativism, the indifferentism, the primary anti- phenomenologism…etc
In Germany, the protestantism, the lutherianism, the nazism, the communism in East Germany, the totalitarism, the catholic relativism, the indifferentism, the primary anti-phenomenologism…etc
In the U-K, the anglicanism, the protestantism, the puritanism, the presbyterianism, the victorianism, machism, the full economical liberalism, the catholic progressism, the catholic modernism, the catholic relativism, the indifferentism, the primary anti- phenomenologism…etc
In the USA, the protestanism, the evangelism, the mormonism, the puritanism, the full economical liberalism, the US imperialism, quiverfullism (quiverfull movements), the theorical providentionalism, the sedevacantism, strong traditionalism (SSPX and his friends), the primary anti-personalism, the catholic progressism, the catholic modernism, the catholic relativism, the indifferentism, the primary anti- phenomenologism…etc.
Behind each opinion,** we have to try to discern for knowing the fundamental reasonnings. You, me, her and the others can be touched in the bad way by those heresies or ideologies, consciously and / or unconsciously. Be careful is the slogan.**
In France the advantage, is that normally, we are not prudish and are not new puritans. In general, we are free to talk about the body and about the link between males and females without taboo. The strong prudishness is not, in general.
It is my line. I am happy to be like that **because there is no taboo if you respect the formal words without slang, without vulgarity. **The issue is the definition **of each one of these terms. In function of countries the acception seems to be stricter or less strict. ****I take the french acception. **
SanctusPeccator
Member
While undoubtedly valid observations for tracing the intellectual history of Christian heterodoxy, seems rather obvious the personal opinions of LauraMajestic would likely be mainly influenced by the “New Atheism” popularized by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, and Michel Onfray?
- Status