What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

If you will cut and paste that into the Ask a Catholic thread, I will take it from there.

Fair enough?

Absolutely. Don't bail on me this time

I won't.

I've got to take my car to get the oil changed, but I'll be back in an hour or so (assuming no other unforeseen "honey-do's").

I promise to answer each question/point to the best of my ability in the other thread ASAP.

[SteelCurtain]

A completely useless question. Randy. Let's get it through our head. Humans are going to have sex. Doesn't matter what you tell them, what you preach to them, what your doctrine is, what you threaten them with. Sex is among the strongest instincts we have. We know this. Can we stipulate this? Or are you going to pretend that they'll stop if only you just threaten them the right way?

So, it is your view that throughout the course of human history, in all places and at all times, humans had sex without self-control? Or would you say that it is possible for people to be chaste/celibate until marriage?

I never said humans have never had self control. You know, Randy, when you know you are defending a lost bit of territory, you behave a lot like Huggy. Black and white thinking and quibbling over inanities.

I am saying that people will objectively choose to have sex, because it is an extremely strong desire that we are ingrained with. It's why most teenagers will still have sex regardless of all the dogmatic fear and shame your despicable lot instills in them.

The point is received, Randy. Abstinence would be great and have wonderful effects if people would follow through. I am not saying abstinence is bad. I am saying it is woefully unrealistic. It is infantile to pretend otherwise. If you think that it works in practice on populations, then you are as stupid as you are making yourself look here. People are going to have sex no matter what you threaten them with, or how much you shame them. Even unending torture in your imaginary lake of fire will not turn off hormones.

Knowing they will have sex, spreading "lies" about how condoms make things worse is just plain evil.

If I told you that the airplane you are about to get on was probably safe, would you get aboard?
If I told you that the roller coaster ride at the county fair is usually safe, would you buy a ticket?
If I told you that the taxi driver in the cab you just hailed is sober most of time, would you get in?

All completely avoiding the point, and awful analogies. I never asked if condoms would eradicate AIDS. They won't. I asked you if the rate of infection spread would be stemmed with condom use. I am asking you if less people would die if Catholics stopped telling people that condoms are evil. That condoms will kill you. That condoms come pre-packaged with AIDS/HIV. If Catholics stopped erecting billboards with skeletons on them that intimate that if you use condoms, this is how you'll end up. I know you are having trouble with answering this question without referring to what Catholics want to happen rather than what is happening, but please try.

Let's make it personal.

Do you think if more people used condoms in Africa that the spread of AIDS would be stemmed?

Not 100%. Which is what would happen if people in Africa stopped having sex with people who are infected altogether.

Again, Randy. I think you know how duplicitous you're being here. You know what I'm getting at, and you won't allow yourself to even consider the ramifications. Please answer the question that was asked rather than the question that you want to answer. Abstinence would work better than condoms. But abstinence is not happening. It is not even trending that way at all. The message of abstinence would be fine, if it were joined with education about being safe if you are going to have sex. But your ilk are teaching that abstinence is the only way, and people are dying as a result.

So, I'll ask the question again:
Do you think less people would die in Africa if Catholics stopped preaching that condoms are evil?
I suppose you'll avoid that question as well, but it's worth a try.

Let's make this personal, okay? Just to test your resolve.

You meet a nice girl and you go out a few times. Things are progressing nicely on many levels, and intimacy is a possibility. Then she tells you she has AIDS. "But it's okay," she says. "If you use a condom, you probably won't become infected."

Kind of a show-stopper, isn't it?

Nope. Not at all. If I liked her enough, and there was enough of a connection there to warrant a further relationship where I make sacrifices, I would continue dating her. We wouldn't have sex until I could verify her viral load. If it was zero, I would get prescribed PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis), which is covered under my insurance. My chances of contracting with PrEP and a condom are effectively zero. The only thing I would have to verify is that she is serious about her cocktail and also that she checks and monitors her viral load regularly. Not a show stopper at all.

Suuuuuure you would, Mike. Sure you would. Cause all that is a lot easier than simply finding another cute girl.

Are people just livestock in your brain, Randy? How callous are you? Just throw this one away, she's got AIDS, there's plenty of other women out there. She might as well be a leper, huh? The more you reveal about yourself here, Randy, the more I am glad I've never met you. You don't seem to have a lick of empathy in your bones. I specifically said that if there was a connection there, I would weigh my options. It's not automatically a "show stopper" for me. If you are calling me a liar for not playing into your perceived "gotcha," then have at it. I know like 90% of what you post here is cookie cutter, so when someone doesn't play along, you get butthurt. Sorry 'bout your luck.

(Can you imagine the comments folks in this forum would be hurling at me if I had written a paragraph like that?)

What, saying that you wouldn't automatically discard a human being for something that is a big deal but completely manageable in this day and age? I think you're projecting, Randy. There's that lack of empathy again.

[Jenny A]

This is simply wrong, Jenny.

We're not speaking of temptation here. Temptation is the opportunity to sin, and temptations are everywhere.

For example, for men who are more visually oriented than women when it comes to the opposite sex, pretty girls are everywhere; thus, temptation is everywhere. But we don't have to give into the temptation by acting on that opportunity.

What Jesus spoke of was NOT temptation but embracing the temptation and committing the sin mentally. The man who sees a naked woman and thinks, "Wow, she's cute" has NOT had sex with her in his mind. The man who sees the same woman (or one who is fully clothed) and starts to imagine "doing" her has committed a sin even though it was not committed physically.

And, I'm not the least bothered by the man who does her in his head.  What he does in the space of his own mind is fine by me.  Seriously.  In the case of imagining sex I'm really, really not bothered.  In the case of imaging murder, I'm only bothered if he's working himself up to the actual crime by thinking it out rather than just fantasizing.  It's acts in the real world that concern me.

Now, there are circumstances in which if someone obsesses about sex with a woman he can't have, or murder that he might hurt himself mentally.  That is a good reason for not obsessing, but the victim would be himself not others.

It's not the hatred so much as the shooting that I object too.  Seriously.  Both men may hate equally, but one of them is much more dangerous.

Well, sure. An angry, hate-filled man with a gun IS more dangerous. But they are BOTH angry, hate-filled men. Jesus would object to the hatred of both equally.

And I would object to hateful actions.   The idea of condemning a man for being hate-filled is abhorrent to me.

You do realize you are talking to people who do not believe in your god?

Of course. But would you agree that IF God exists, then He would know the inner thoughts of man? And if God judges according to a higher standard, then not only the actions of men but the thoughts of men must be considered by God?

So, it is consistent to believe that IF a holy and righteous God exists, then He calls us to a higher standard than we might otherwise aspire to if left to our own devices.

Actually not necessarily, you would have to define the attributes about the god we are talking about, before I'd agree he would know our inner thoughts.  And if such a god existed and he did know them, then I would appreciate very much if he didn't spy and left people's inner thoughts to themselves.   You proposed standard is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and replacing Big Brother with god makes it no better.

[Brakeman]

Actually not necessarily, you would have to define the attributes about the god we are talking about, before I'd agree he would know our inner thoughts.  And if such a god existed and he did know them, then I would appreciate very much if he didn't spy and left people's inner thoughts to themselves.   You proposed standard is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and replacing Big Brother with god makes it no better.

Just exactly how would sky daddy eavesdrop on our thoughts?

Of course the answer is "Woo Woo Magic!"  but how does that magic work?

Does god daddy use this??

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure what the issue is, Parkers. If you mentally address a woman and imagine yourself having sex with her, you have committed the sin of adultery in your head just as much as the man who physically does it. Is this so difficult to understand?

For Catholic Lady, it apparently is. She seems to think that Jesus's words on the matter have a finer interpretation than you or I.

If one man walks into a church and opens fire on a group of people having a prayer meeting, how is he more guilty of hatred than the man who imagines himself doing the same thing but cannot get up the courage to actually pull the trigger?

God judges the heart because He knows the inner thoughts.

This is according to your book, yes. But apparently there is dissension even in your own church about this point, which supports what I'm saying -- claiming morality is objective because of God's existence is clearly untrue given that his own followers cannot agree upon what is moral and what isn't.

Nor should dishonesty be tolerated...as long as it is actual dishonesty and not simply disagreement or misunderstanding.

It is actual dishonesty. He refused to acknowledge that his lumping me in with other was disingenuous.

If that were the norm, it would be Court TV I'd want to watch!

Then why are you complaining about my language here? Your incoherence grows with every post.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are people just livestock in your brain, Randy? How callous are you? 

Why are you even asking?  Did you miss his bit about god managing a human chicken farm? Culling the "spiritually diseased".... 

[Catholic_Lady]

But in Christianity, when we refer to "the sin of lust," we are not referring to the isolated act of being aroused. We are talking about taking it a step further by deliberately continuing to feed that arousal by objectifying someone else for personal gratification.

So, if you are married and you see another woman and become involuntarily aroused but go on about your day, you have not done anything immoral. But if upon feeling that arousal you choose to continue to stare and then proceed to fantasize about having sex with this woman or whatever, this is immoral. (all this per Church teaching of course)

Ah, your Church has interpreted the bible this way.  What about the other churches which interpret this passage in a different manner?

Why is your interpretation priviieged?

This is the interpretation that I have come to believe in. It makes the most sense to me. It would make zero sense to me if someone said that an involuntary arousal was sinful. I have never heard anyone say that before, but if I did I'd definitely not agree.

Also, Parker's Tan, it seems you assume that every time I write something such as I did above, that it is my own personal interpretation that I'm just making up. Lol, trust me I'm not smart enough to make up stuff like this. This is stuff I read in books written by Catholic apologists and theologians. This one in particular I first read about in a Catholic book by Mary Beth Bonacci, but it is a widely accepted view in Catholic circles.

Trust me, I'm not ascribing any originality to you. But you are responsible for the interpretations you choose. In line with the cherry-picking you practice on the Bible itself, you also choose the interpretations that best suit your morality already in place. This is why even in your Catholic Church, there are differences of opinion on matters Biblical.

The Catholic Church has no other "interpretation" of this.

But you are correct that certain things (un important things) can be interpreted in different ways so long as the overall take away is the same. For example, someone is free to believe in the story of genesis literally, or allegorically. The overall message is that God is behind all of creation and that humans have free will and that we are called by God to resist temptation and take the moral path. Whether you believe that there was a snake and an apple, etc, is just details.

[Mudhammam]

Another atheist posed this question here.

Did you even read that article? There was no question regarding the necessity of introducing deity into the notion of abstract goods, nor did WLC even attempt to justify such a lofty and unneeded assumption.

[The Grand Nudger]

For example, someone is free to believe in the story of genesis literally, or allegorically. 

No, they are not...you might want to start researching your own doctrine before you post...you have a history of misrepresenting the position of the  church.

You -must- believe that god literally created all that you see (from nothing), period. You -must- believe in a literal Adam and Eve, period. You -must- believe that all human beings are descended from these two "first parents", period. You -must- believe that the fall of man was an actual -event-, period. (this is all, just for starters)

You -may not- disagree, call them allegory, or provide your own interpretations....and then maintain that your positions on the matter is catholic, permissible by the church, or true. They are simply positions held by -a- catholic, and roundly, unambiguously stated to be wrong by the institution to which you, as a catholic, -claim- to defer to in matters of faith. When the church says that you may hold your own personal opinions on a matter...they are simply -allowing you-...officially, to be wrong (gee, thanks guys). As you are, for example, when you accept evolutionary biology....despite the infallible doctrines of the catholic church completely and utterly ruling it out..and yes...-in spite of-, as before -allowing you- to hold an incorrect opinion on the matter.

They're just telling you that you're allowed to be wrong, so long as in -being wrong-...you maintain that their position is true, and yours a mere opinion; -not- that your positions may be right. You are -not- free to claim any truth value for your own opinions on these matters, you -are not- free to believe in incorrect doctrine, or things contrary -to- correct doctrine, as decided by the church. Do you understand?

-Allowance for individual conscience does not confer the right of individual disobedience.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm not sure what the issue is, Parkers. If you mentally address a woman and imagine yourself having sex with her, you have committed the sin of adultery in your head just as much as the man who physically does it. Is this so difficult to understand?

For Catholic Lady, it apparently is. She seems to think that Jesus's words on the matter have a finer interpretation than you or I.

Hm? My interpretation of it is exactly what Randy wrote.

The word Jesus used was lust.

Lust =/= involuntary arousal

Lust = making the decision to objectify someone in your mind by having sex with them, etc