Love??? Evil???


#1

God ordered and/or personally performed genocides .... and you call God "love".
Two people love each other and express that love sexually in a method which precludes conception .... and you call that act "evil".

And then you are surprised when rational humans look at you and shake their heads .... saying "what is wrong with these people"?

:shrug:


#2

You have a really weird definition of love. Just saying that you love someone in order to justify doing something wrong doesn’t work. My grandma loved her children. No one doubts that. It was still wrong of her to not come home because she was drunk somewhere and to bring around questionable and flatout abusive boyfriends. Any sexual act that is outside of marriage is sinful because it is using the other person for your own comfort and not his or her own interest. I’m not quite sure you know what genecide is either. Genecide is the killing of a certain race or group of people in order to remove them from the genepool or a geopraphic area. It is based on the idea that that group of people are inherently inferior to the majority and you are helping the “greater good” by disposing of this group of people. Individual merits of the victims are not considered in the equation. In the cases in the Bible where God kills large groups of people, it is because of their own sinful choices and their rejection of Him and even a natural sense of right and wrong that human beings are born with.


#3

[quote="Tyrion, post:1, topic:312775"]
God ordered and/or personally performed genocides .... and you call God "love".

[/quote]

Yes - we call God Love.

Do you know the circumstances of the peoples involved in these acts? Were they redeemable or were they so far gone into depravity that they were beyond saving?

I do not know - you do not know - we simply do not know.

That said - I do see how the recorded acts from thousands of years ago can seem totally inexplicable to us.

For myself, I am commanded to Love God and Love my neighbor as myself - and even to Love my enemies and do good to those who spite me.

I see so much good in this....The perfect expression of that which would solve all of the interpersonal problems in the world.

I also that this is a command that will keep me quite busy all of my days without worrying about the particulars of certain OT matters.

Two people love each other and express that love sexually in a method which precludes conception .... and you call that act "evil".

Actually I think that this is called "disordered".

And then you are surprised when rational humans look at you and shake their heads .... saying "what is wrong with these people"?

:shrug:

Nope - I'm not surprised. I'm also not surprised when rational people fall in Love with God, become part of His Church and do many great things - produce many great writings - live and breathe Agape (Love) in all and to all - and in general leave the world better than they found it - all for the Love of God.

Peace
James


#4

[quote="Tyrion, post:1, topic:312775"]
God ordered and/or personally performed genocides .... and you call God "love".

[/quote]

Your name appears to come from Game of Thrones, which I am currently reading (200 pages into Storm).

POSSIBLE SPOILERS (from fairly early in the first book)
I assume we can agree that Catelyn loves her son Bran. But surely she would have killed his assassin had she needed to. And Summer, who loved him in a -]dog/-]wolf-master way, actually DID kill the assassin.
SPOILERS OVER

Love is not the same as pacifism.

Two people love each other and express that love sexually in a method which precludes conception .... and you call that act "evil".

Misconception. Catholics do not think all sex is evil. Marriage is (partly) about bringing new life into the world. And in this context, sex is (I dare to say) admired or encouraged. Outside of marriage, on the other hand, it's adultery (I think) and a sin (I know that much, I just can't remember the exact name)


#5

I think there is also some difficulties with translation and context. I just learned this myself. But there are more than one type of “love” defined, but the english language only has one word.
Eros- erotic "lustful"
Agape- Unconditional
Phila- brotherly
Storge-family

christianity.about.com/od/glossary/a/Agape.htm

Parents love their children with a specific type of love, not erotic love (we hope). But sometimes that love means correction. ie… dont stick your finger in the light socket…
And I disagree that rationality alone is always “good.” Hitler probably thought he was pretty rational, as did many others at the time… and yet… yeah. Basically every type of love has its context. A parent who “loves” their children erotically would be called “evil” :thumbsup: This is why intent matters, but some things are harmful to others or yourself in some way,in which case they are sinful. Its a little more complicated and im not an apologist but is this helpful?


#6

One does not analyze "love", one does it, lives it and feels it. When two people express their love for each other (be they married or not, be of different genders or the same) there is NO need to mix it with procreation. It can be, of course, but it is not a prerequisite.

When a couple is infertile, when there is absolutely no chance of conception, the love can still be there. If the uterus was removed, and conception is impossible, there is absolutely no reason to be "open" to something that cannot happen. This "requirement" is absurd!

Love is sitting by the fireside, or looking at the sunset, no need for words any more, because one can start a sentence, and the other one can finish it. Yet, this kind of love is condemned if the physical expression of it is not "open" to an impossible procreation.

That is the point here!

Or, rather, one of the points. If one takes the bible at least somewhat seriously, then God slaughtered children, toddlers, newborns - indiscriminately! God declares that he will visit the sins of the fathers until the seventh generation. That is not "love", that is unjust and cruel. A just judge never puts the children or grandchildren into jail for the transgression of the father.

The important point of this thread is that you try to bring the "good news" to the world, you attempt to evangelize, to convince the non-christians and non-catholics, how "wonderful" God is, and how "loving" he is. But you speak a language which no one understands. Love is not indiscriminate slaughter, no matter what the transgressions of the fathers might have been!

The actual expression of love, even if "procreation" is not part of it, does not become "disordered" or "mortally sinful". It is just simple, good, old fashioned L-O-V-E!


#7

You say that we, “speak a language which no one understands” and yet every years thousands of people convert to Catholicism. Thousands more join some other Christian community. So I think that it is safe to say that some people understand the language we are speaking.

Peace
James


#8

Haha! No doubt. But considering the number of those who are exposed (which is many millions!) the conversion of a paltry, few thousands (in a year!) is less than a drop in a bucket. :wink:


#9

Yup but even though they are few - it negates the blanket statement that nobody understands the language we are speaking.

And of course - we fully expect that many more will reject faith than will accept it. For Our Lord says…
"Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. - (Matthew 7:13)

Peace
James


#10

OK. You win. There are a few…

The point is still that reasonable people will reject “unlimited slaughter of infants and children” as an act of “love”, and will accept true expression of real love as commendable - even if it does not include the prospect of “procreation”.


#11

:D: I knew, being the reasonable reasonable person you are, that you would agree. :thumbsup:

The point is still that reasonable people will reject “unlimited slaughter of infants and children” as an act of “love”, and will accept true expression of real love as commendable - even if it does not include the prospect of “procreation”.

I quite agree with what you say here. Thankfully the God I worship is not the god you describe here.

Peace
James


#12

[quote="JRKH, post:11, topic:312775"]
I quite agree with what you say here. Thankfully the God I worship is not the god you describe here.

[/quote]

Good for you... but then you should not call yourself a christian or a catholic. :)


#13

[quote="Tyrion, post:12, topic:312775"]
Good for you... but then you should not call yourself a christian or a catholic. :)

[/quote]

Why?

My God, the Christian God does not engage in unlimited slaughter...Nor does he condemn, as you say the, "true expression of real love".

Peace
James


#14

[quote="Tyrion, post:6, topic:312775"]
One does not analyze "love", one does it, lives it and feels it. When two people express their love for each other (be they married or not, be of different genders or the same) there is NO need to mix it with procreation. It can be, of course, but it is not a prerequisite.

When a couple is infertile, when there is absolutely no chance of conception, the love can still be there. If the uterus was removed, and conception is impossible, there is absolutely no reason to be "open" to something that cannot happen. This "requirement" is absurd!

Love is sitting by the fireside, or looking at the sunset, no need for words any more, because one can start a sentence, and the other one can finish it. Yet, this kind of love is condemned if the physical expression of it is not "open" to an impossible procreation.

That is the point here!

Or, rather, one of the points. If one takes the bible at least somewhat seriously, then God slaughtered children, toddlers, newborns - indiscriminately! God declares that he will visit the sins of the fathers until the seventh generation. That is not "love", that is unjust and cruel. A just judge never puts the children or grandchildren into jail for the transgression of the father.

The important point of this thread is that you try to bring the "good news" to the world, you attempt to evangelize, to convince the non-christians and non-catholics, how "wonderful" God is, and how "loving" he is. But you speak a language which no one understands. Love is not indiscriminate slaughter, no matter what the transgressions of the fathers might have been!

The actual expression of love, even if "procreation" is not part of it, does not become "disordered" or "mortally sinful". It is just simple, good, old fashioned L-O-V-E!

[/quote]

This is tragic. you really believe this stuff. really. okay the number of misconceptions in this short statement you have made is huge. I hardly know where to begin because if you have this many misconceptions in your logic you are not likely to listen to anything anyone says, but...

I always find this objection strange (just my opinion) it is out of left field and comparing apples with hand grenades. You are comparing the nature of homosexual relations in the biological necessity of there barren, un-procreative, selfish (yes I said that there is no gift to the other. The whole act becomes as selfish as a heterosexual couple who contracept) acts to a loving heterosexual couple who cannot have kids through no fault of there own because of a fairly rare medical necessity that is entirely beside the biological hardwired nature of the relation.

As pointed out earlier there are different kinds of love which are appropriate to different classes of people. the kind of love where people know each other well enough to finish each others sentences is not necessarily erotic love. Good friends, fathers, mothers, sons & daughters all these relations can fall into that category. The proper physical expression of these relations is not condemned in its physical expression. You just have a poor(in my opinion) understanding of what that expression should be.

And the huge misconception that atheists, who want to live without restraint and make us live as if its right so they don't feel bad, is that God is unjust. Yet they refuse to analyse God almighty and eternal in light of Jesus the Christ and what he said and did. The coming of Christ is THE pivotal moment in history. That is why we wrap time around this moment. that is why all of history is measured by its distance from this moment.
The Old Testament cannot find its proper expression outside of the person of Jesus Christ. (Augustine, or the current holy father, both explain that the Old Testament is revealed in the new and the new is concealed in the old.)

Consider what was going on in these cultures in the old testament. Whole cultures were openly warring with God's people. It was an open war scenario. Read Maccabees sometime. Even if you don't think they are inspired books they are a great history of what was going on at the time. Constant warfare. The nation of Israel was hounded by its adversaries for 100's of years. People who scarified children among other humans ritually. and of course who can forget the fertility gods. murdering what could be described as children, and women during ritual intercourse (I choose not to get more explicit on a forum children might read.) If these cultures were not destroyed they would have completely destroyed Israeli, and tried on several occasions. Its right there in the bible.

I don't see any indiscriminate slaughter in anything God ever commanded. I have read the book which is a blow by blow account with so much wrong on both sides that God himself has to come down here and straighten it out (read the Jesus event).

your whole post is just misconception from beginning to end. You don't have a legitimate case your just blowing off steam.

If I did not know better (and I don't) I would ask what homosexual activist was the source of these accusations. :shrug:


#15

I am pointing out the SIMILARITIES - namely the mutual LOVE among the partners - which has NOTHING to do with procreation. You are the one who presents the absurd idea that even if the heterosexual couple cannot conceive (for whatever reason!) they are still forbidden to enjoy sex, if it is not “open” to the IMPOSSIBLE conception.

True and irrelevant. I am talking about one specific type of love.

What is “just” about a tsunami, which kills indiscriminately, adults, children, toddlers and even the “unborn”? Yet the catechism (and the dogmas) teaches that God plays an active and integral part in every event. If you point a gun and pull the trigger, it is God who keeps the bullet on its trajectory, and “guides” it to head of the victim. What is “just” about “condemning the children for the actions of the fathers”? What was so very “just” about the flood, which killed everyone?

Ah so God did not love ALL the people, only a small and insignificant tribe? And he ordered that tribe to kill everyone of the enemies, men, women, children? And is this an act of “love”?

Then you did not read the bible. Sometimes he commanded, sometimes he performed it with his own virtual “hands”.

You are in a very bad position to evengelize. Rational people will reject these illogical “arguments”.

Love does not equal genocide, no matter how diligently you try to explain it away. Mutually expressed erotic love is not evil, even if does not include the possibility of conception.

Until you cannot understand these simple principles, your effort to spread the “good news” will stay ineffective. As we are both aware, the Vatican is concerned about the status of the world - and from its point of view the situation can be described by the military expression of “SNAFU”. Gay marriage is just around the corner, abortion stays legal, adultery and fornication are “stubbornly” left out from the law books. Church attendance is down. In Europe religion is all but gone. And it all could be remedied if the irrational and illogical arguments were dropped.

Funny, but I am trying to help you by poining out the problems of your methods. (Of course Cassandra was never listened to, either. :))


#16

Pardon me for butting in to your response to “down under”…and I do not mean to ignore the rest of your post but I just wanted to address something that the above illustrates. That is, a fundamental difference in the “world view” of the believer and the non-believer.
The unbeliever - limited only to the corporeal - sees death with no hope…and sees in this some injustice.
From the viewpoint of the Christian and the God of Christianity - God has “killed” no one - not one. Since the soul is eternal, those who die a corporeal death have merely changed states - they are not “dead”.
God’s Justice remains intact and He deals justly and lovingly, with each and every soul as it comes before Him.

Of course I do not expect you to accept this explanation for yourself…but perhaps pondering on it will help you to see the “rationale” and “logic” of our viewpoint and, do to the great difference in our viewpoint from yours, why such logic and rationale is so difficult for you to see.

Anyway - I hope it is helpful

Peace
James


#17

[quote="Tyrion, post:15, topic:312775"]
True and irrelevant. I am talking about one specific type of love.

[/quote]

You are talking about the English word "Love" which has multiple uses. And even if you did only mean agape, the other types are still relevant to discussion.

What is "just" about a tsunami, which kills indiscriminately, adults, children, toddlers and even the "unborn"? Yet the catechism (and the dogmas) teaches that God plays an active and integral part in every event. If you point a gun and pull the trigger, it is God who keeps the bullet on its trajectory, and "guides" it to head of the victim. What is "just" about "condemning the children for the actions of the fathers"? What was so very "just" about the flood, which killed everyone?

Where in the Catechism is that? (I'll leave refuting that flood comment to someone else)

Ah so God did not love ALL the people, only a small and insignificant tribe? And he ordered that tribe to kill everyone of the enemies, men, women, children? And is this an act of "love"?

Again, love is not the same thing as pacifism. God was trying to protect Israel. (Also, the enemies started it many a time)

You are in a very bad position to evangelize. Rational people will reject these illogical "arguments".

I take offense to this. I'm a very rational person, and God makes more sense to me than atheism.

Until you cannot understand these simple principles, your effort to spread the "good news" will stay ineffective. As we are both aware, the Vatican is concerned about the status of the world - and from its point of view the situation can be described by the military expression of "SNAFU". Gay marriage is just around the corner, abortion stays legal, adultery and fornication are "stubbornly" left out from the law books. Church attendance is down. In Europe religion is all but gone. And it all could be remedied if the irrational and illogical arguments were dropped.

What you call "ineffective," I call people not wanting to convert from Protestantism.

About abortion, Doe is pro-life, as are a majority of Americans. I predict that it will actually experience a decline tarting in 4 years when Obama's finally out of office.

Church attendance rose in 2010, according to a Gallup poll. And in the long term, it's staying about 42-43% this entire decade, with a spike I'm attributing to 9/11.


#18

[quote="JRKH, post:16, topic:312775"]
Pardon me for butting in to your response to "down under"....and I do not mean to ignore the rest of your post but I just wanted to address something that the above illustrates.

[/quote]

Your input is always welcome.

[quote="JRKH, post:16, topic:312775"]
That is, a fundamental difference in the "world view" of the believer and the non-believer.

The unbeliever - limited only to the corporeal - sees death with no hope...and sees in this some injustice.

[/quote]

There is a misunderstanding here. For the non-believer death is not an injustice, it is part of the natural course of events. Now, premature death, death coupled with "torture" (and I think that drowning is an "uncomfortable" way to die) is a very different thing - BUT only if there is God. If God decides that for Jane Q. Schmoe it is time to "go" - because it is the BEST thing for Jane (and it MUST be the best thing, otherwise God's love is null and void) then so be it. To get to the next "level" of existence (which is in the BEST INTEREST of Jane - according to God's benevolence) is fine and dandy. But the WAY it happens is not irrelevant. If Jane's departure is coupled with rape and torture, captured on video and sent to her grieving family to rub some salt into the wound, then there is nothing "loving" about "allowing" that to happen.

Your only recourse here (I think, and correct me if I am wrong) would be to say that whatever happens in this existence is of no relevance when compared to the eternal "bliss" (Yes, I actually heard that). But that would be even more irrational. Even if this existence is merely a "proving ground", whatever happens here and now is not irrelevant. And, of course you have no "proof" that Jane will get that "eternal bliss". For all you know she might die cursing God and the holy spirit, and as such her final destination would be eternal torture. (Blasphemy against the holy spirit cannot be forgiven - according to the church).

[quote="JRKH, post:16, topic:312775"]
God's Justice remains intact and He deals justly and lovingly, with each and every soul as it comes before Him.

[/quote]

Too bad that all this is unproven and unprovable empty conjecture. To visit the sins of the fathers up until the seventh generation is NOT just, by any sensible meaning of the word. However God dispenses "justice" over there - here and now there is no sign of any "love and justice". We can either extrapolate from what we see and experience here, or we can discard all the evidence and rely of very, very BLIND faith. And this is where the heathens depart from the faithful ones. To have no evidence and still believe is silly, but to have evidence to the contrary, and still believe is ... well, let's just say: "much worse".

[quote="JRKH, post:16, topic:312775"]
Of course I do not expect you to accept this explanation for yourself....but perhaps pondering on it will help you to see the "rationale" and "logic" of our viewpoint and, do to the great difference in our viewpoint from yours, why such logic and rationale is so difficult for you to see.

[/quote]

That is all fine. There is a great collection of the most important and controversial Supreme Court cases - the title is "May It Please The Court" (cost me 75 bucks :)). Naturally everyone felt very strongly about each case, myself included. However, no matter how strongly I agreed with side "A" and disagreed with side "B", I had to admire the arguments for both sides.

I disagreed with side "B", but I could never accuse the lawyers of "BS"-ing. They presented well-reasoned, logical arguments without internal inconsistency - the problem was their starting position. So it is quite possible to look at an argument one disagrees with, and still accept that it was well presented. That is what is missing here.


#19

[quote="Tyrion, post:18, topic:312775"]
There is a misunderstanding here. For the non-believer death is not an injustice, it is part of the natural course of events. Now, premature death, death coupled with "torture" (and I think that drowning is an "uncomfortable" way to die) is a very different thing - BUT only if there is God. If God decides that for Jane Q. Schmoe it is time to "go" - because it is the BEST thing for Jane (and it MUST be the best thing, otherwise God's love is null and void) then so be it. To get to the next "level" of existence (which is in the BEST INTEREST of Jane - according to God's benevolence) is fine and dandy. But the WAY it happens is not irrelevant. If Jane's departure is coupled with rape and torture, captured on video and sent to her grieving family to rub some salt into the wound, then there is nothing "loving" about "allowing" that to happen.

[/quote]

Jane Doe got married?!

That aside, this is another difference in world views centered around the problem of evil. From a Catholic understanding, allowing evil IS being loving, albeit in an indirect way. God wants us to love him. But is it really love if he forces us to? Hence, we have free will to freely choose to love or reject God. Unfortunately, people sinning in an inevitable consequence of that freedom.


#20

[quote="Tyrion, post:18, topic:312775"]
Your input is always welcome.

[/quote]

I only pray that it is not only welcome - but useful.

There is a misunderstanding here. For the non-believer death is not an injustice, it is part of the natural course of events. Now, premature death, death coupled with "torture" (and I think that drowning is an "uncomfortable" way to die) is a very different thing - BUT only if there is God. If God decides that for Jane Q. Schmoe it is time to "go" - because it is the BEST thing for Jane (and it MUST be the best thing, otherwise God's love is null and void) then so be it. To get to the next "level" of existence (which is in the BEST INTEREST of Jane - according to God's benevolence) is fine and dandy. But the WAY it happens is not irrelevant. If Jane's departure is coupled with rape and torture, captured on video and sent to her grieving family to rub some salt into the wound, then there is nothing "loving" about "allowing" that to happen.

There is no misunderstanding here....There is only your inability to consider things from anything but your own worldly viewpoint.

For instance...you talk about "premature" death; death coupled with torture etc...
So - tell me - what constitutes "premature death"? Is not ALL death "premature" whether 8 months or 80 years?...Is there not "torture" associated with virtually ALL death whether by disease, war or accident?

Why do you get to define what is "premature death" - or what constitutes "torture" etc. And what makes your view more "reasonable" than mine?

I ask these things more rhetorically than in seeking any actual response. All of these things feed into what I had posted previously about our very different world views.

Your only recourse here (I think, and correct me if I am wrong) would be to say that whatever happens in this existence is of no relevance when compared to the eternal "bliss" (Yes, I actually heard that).

It is not my "only" recourse...but it is the best one. I could be like you and irrationally reject God - but to me that would seem to be the height of stupidity...so I don't go there. I'm too smart for that.

You might find it interesting as a side note - to know that I am the full time caregiver of my wife, a brilliant woman of great accomplishment, who is slowly dying of Alzheimer's dementia...who has been slowly robbed of all the gifts God gave her save one - me (the booby prize). Should I turn on God for this unfair and torturous end? No. I do not. For God has given us many blessings even in our suffering.

But that would be even more irrational.

Sez you....;)

Even if this existence is merely a "proving ground", whatever happens here and now is not irrelevant. And, of course you have no "proof" that Jane will get that "eternal bliss". For all you know she might die cursing God and the holy spirit, and as such her final destination would be eternal torture. (Blasphemy against the holy spirit cannot be forgiven - according to the church).

Yup which is all the more reason to embrace God and to not offend Him.

(Cont)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.