Break up with my girlfriend?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Regarding avoiding kissing before marriage a Pope actually condemned the view that passionate kissing is only a venial sin before marriage.. Which means its grave matter. It really doesn't matter if people think of me as an idiot for not kissing before marriage. I'd rather please God. I'm discerning another vocation but if I was considering marriage and dating I would not kiss the guy. 

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Regarding avoiding kissing before marriage a Pope actually condemned the view that passionate kissing is only a venial sin before marriage.. Which means its grave matter. It really doesn't matter if people think of me as an idiot for not kissing before marriage. I'd rather please God. I'm discerning another vocation but if I was considering marriage and dating I would not kiss the guy. 

Where to draw the line? I think I saw somewhere where it said that you can't do anything that you would not do in front of both of your parents. Seems reasonable.

LOL. Unless your parents are freaky or something. Then you would have to apply a different standard I suppose.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Peace

[Era Might]

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

What about sleeping with 10 different women in 10 different days. Anything wrong with that?

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it, which is not to say I think it's a good idea. Actions have consequences...I don't think you have to have any sense of supernatural guilt to recognize that our actions themselves are our punishment or reward. Someone who sleeps with 10 different women in 10 different days is obviously someone who has no sense of themselves and no conscious control over what they are using their lives for. But I don't see any difference in sleeping with 10 different women once or 1 woman 10 times. The person who sleeps with 1 woman may say they would never sleep with 10 women, but that's easy to say when you can't get 10 different women to sleep with. Your choices are limited to your options, but the man who sleeps with 1 woman may just as well fantasize about 10 women. But the man who fantasizes about 10 women may be even more ignorant than the man who sleeps with 10, because the man who sleeps with 10 women at least has the real experience, he has lived, not just trapped himself in thought, and living is the only way out of ignorance.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with it, which is not to say I think it's a good idea. Actions have consequences...I don't think you have to have any sense of supernatural guilt to recognize that our actions themselves are our punishment or reward. Someone who sleeps with 10 different women in 10 different days is obviously someone who has no sense of themselves and no conscious control over what they are using their lives for. But I don't see any difference in sleeping with 10 different women once or 1 woman 10 times. The person who sleeps with 1 woman may say they would never sleep with 10 women, but that's easy to say when you can't get 10 different women to sleep with. Your choices are limited to your options, but the man who sleeps with 1 woman may just as well fantasize about 10 women. But the man who fantasizes about 10 women may be even more ignorant than the man who sleeps with 10, because the man who sleeps with 10 women at least has the real experience, he has lived, not just trapped himself in thought, and living is the only way out of ignorance.

Fair enough. What about rape? Is there anything wrong with that? Or is it just a bad idea as well, because it might have the negative consequence of going to jail?

I am just trying to get a sense of what your moral compass is.

[Era Might]

Just now, Peace said:

Fair enough. What about rape? Is there anything wrong with that? Or is it just a bad idea as well, because it might have the negative consequence of going to jail?

I am just trying to get a sense of what your moral compass is.

Rape is the opposite of consciousness and enlightenment, because it is depriving someone else of their own conscious decisions.

Jail is just the social form of rape.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

Rape is the opposite of consciousness and enlightenment, because it is depriving someone else of their own conscious decisions.

OK. But is rape wrong? Is it wrong to deprive someone else of their own conscious decision. Why?

[Norseman82]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

I wonder what place/culture Norseman grew up in, and if that has anything to do with his mode of thinking.

A culture in which right was rewarded and wrong was punished, as opposed to today's cuckooness.  A place where mean-spirited statements like Lillabettt's would be called out to "put up or shut up".  And she did shut up.  Mission accomplished.

[Era Might]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

OK. But is rape wrong? Is it wrong to deprive someone else of their own conscious decision. Why?

Because that is what makes us human, our awareness of our consciousness and ability to enter in to our consciousness on deeper levels (i.e., the ability to grow as a human being).

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Norseman82 said:

A culture in which right was rewarded and wrong was punished, as opposed to today's cuckooness.  A place where mean-spirited statements like Lillabettt's would be called out to "put up or shut up".  And she did shut up.  Mission accomplished.

Where would that be? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Do you have any regrets about writing that? If you could go back would you do it again?

It's never too late to apologize, you know.

3 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Because that is what makes us human, our awareness of our consciousness and ability to enter in to our consciousness on deeper levels (i.e., the ability to grow as a human being).

1) But why would it be wrong to take away what makes someone human? For example, in your view, why should I not kill another person if it benefits me?

Let's say that killing another person increases my freedom, or increases my own "ability to enter into my consciousness on a deeper level". If those are goals that are worthy of obtaining - then it would be a good thing for me to kill someone if doing so would further those goals, would it not?

2) Christians might think of growing as a human being as becoming more like Jesus. Becoming more like what God intended us to be.

How would you define it? When people are "growing as a human being" what exactly is the target? What should a person be growing into, in your view? One can just as easily grow into a Ghandi or a Hitler. Is it better to grow into one versus the other? Why?

[Norseman82]

10 minutes ago, Peace said:

Where would that be? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Do you have any regrets about writing that? If you could go back would you do it again?

It's never too late to apologize, you know.

Why should I apologize for calling out a mean-spirited comment?  "Spitting in the face of martyrs"?  What place/culture was SHE raised in?  I don't even recall the most hard-nosed nuns making that statement.

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Norseman82 said:

Why should I apologize for calling out a mean-spirited comment?  "Spitting in the face of martyrs"?  What place/culture was SHE raised in?  I don't even recall the most hard-nosed nuns making that statement.

Well if you do not feel that you are wrong then there is no reason for you to apologize. Most of the folks on this site seem to think that they way you handled it was wrong (perhaps we can take a poll on it). That, of course, does not make you objectively wrong. But you might consider why the sentiment on the site seems to be against you concerning that point.

Personally, I think that if you thought she wrote something that was wrong, then you could have stated it in a better way. I don't think that it is a good thing to suggest that a person offer herself up as a fake-spouse to a gay person (or whatever exactly it was that you wrote). If someone said such a thing to your sister, wife, or mother, you would probably be offended by it, right?

[Era Might]

27 minutes ago, Peace said:

1) But why would it be wrong to take away what makes someone human? For example, in your view, why should I not kill another person if it benefits me?

Let's say that killing another person increases my freedom, or increases my own "ability to enter into my consciousness on a deeper level". If those are goals that are worthy of obtaining - then it would be a good thing for me to kill someone if doing so would further those goals, would it not?

2) Christians might think of growing as a human being as becoming more like Jesus. Becoming more like what God intended us to be.

How would you define it? When people are "growing as a human being" what exactly is the target? What should a person be growing into, in your view? One can just as easily grow into a Ghandi or a Hitler. Is it better to grow into one versus the other? Why?

On 1) Killing someone is often a great means of self-knowledge. I think of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment." But just because you THINK something does something for you, doesn't mean it does. That's the nature of ignorance and action...we only discover ourselves in action, and reflection on action. Of course, it's not a perfect undertaking. Sometimes you have sex with the wrong person and get HIV. Sometimes you go to war for your country and find out your country used you as cannon fodder. Sometimes you marry the wrong person and have to look for someone else. We're lucky to have a long history to learn from others (literature, philosophy, art, religion, etc.), but at the end of the day, we can only discover ourselves by living. Even something like celibacy can only be discovered by living...if celibacy is just a straightjacket you embrace, something external to yourself, then it's not a good thing. But many sages have become celibates after living life...Tolstoy among them.

On 2) I don't believe in "ideas" that we grow into. Hitler was a product of the world he lived in. So was Gandhi. And within that world, they also had consciousness and awareness, limited to their personal experience, their world, their options, etc. I think the idea of "becoming what God intended us to be" is just ideology that means whatever you want it to mean. In the Middle Ages, maybe God intended you to be a peasant. Today, maybe he intends you to be a good suburban housewife with two cars. I don't believe human growth does or can happen alone, because we are all organisms in an environment. We can only grow and act in our limited environment. In your case, you had sex with your girlfriend...to me, it's silly to sit around fretting about an invisible judge in the sky. You had sex, you probably enjoyed it, great...but if that's the end of your growth and awareness, it's useless. That's the nature of a relationship...five years from now you may be looking back and thinking, how did I ever get into a relationship with her? That's better than thinking, "wow, five years and I never had sex."

Edited December 13, 2015 by Era Might

[Norseman82]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well if you do not feel that you are wrong then there is no reason for you to apologize. Most of the folks on this site seem to think that they way you handled it was wrong (perhaps we can take a poll on it). That, of course, does not make you objectively wrong. But you might consider why the sentiment on the site seems to be against you concerning that point.

At one point in Church history, most of the folks subscribed to the Arian heresy as well.

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Personally, I think that if you thought she wrote something that was wrong, then you could have stated it in a better way. I don't think that it is a good thing to suggest that a person offer herself up as a fake-spouse to a gay person (or whatever exactly it was that you wrote). If someone said such a thing to your sister, wife, or mother, you would probably be offended by it, right?

Actually, if I had a sister who had a history of saying off-the-wall things like that, I would welcome someone putting her in her place.

[Era Might]

Anyway, sorry, I'm not trying to dissuade you from being Catholic or even dissuade you from abstaining with your girlfriend. Just encouraging you to think deeper, always. Self-knowledge is the "target," to answer your question, what we are striving for. Not book knowledge, not religious knowledge, but self-knowledge...even if your process of self-knowledge leads you to books and religion, it has to come from you, from living. A learned or religious man without self-knowledge is ignorant.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Era Might

[Peace]

21 minutes ago, Era Might said:

On 1) Killing someone is often a great means of self-knowledge. I think of Raskolnikov in Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment." But just because you THINK something does something for you, doesn't mean it does. That's the nature of ignorance and action...we only discover ourselves in action, and reflection on action. Of course, it's not a perfect undertaking. Sometimes you have sex with the wrong person and get HIV. Sometimes you go to war for your country and find out your country used you as cannon fodder. Sometimes you marry the wrong person and have to look for someone else. We're lucky to have a long history to learn from others (literature, philosophy, art, religion, etc.), but at the end of the day, we can only discover ourselves by living. Even something like celibacy can only be discovered by living...if celibacy is just a straightjacket you embrace, something external to yourself, then it's not a good thing. But many sages have become celibates after living life...Tolstoy among them.

Let me see if I understand what you are saying. In your view then, whether something is a "good thing" depends on whether it leads to self-knowledge, or "discovering oneself". Giving money to a homeless person, raping a baby, murdering a helpless person are all equivalent in your view, as long as they lead to self-knowledge or "discovering oneself." Is that correct?

21 minutes ago, Era Might said:

On 2) I don't believe in "ideas" that we grow into. Hitler was a product of the world he lived in. So was Gandhi. And within that world, they also had consciousness and awareness, limited to their personal experience, their world, their options, etc.

Then you are saying that Hitler is not responsible for his actions and Gandhi is not responsible for his actions? That in effect they are just both "product of their times"?

If that is the case - how is it that one obtains self-knowledge or "discovers himself" through his actions? If those actions are only a product of the world he lives in, and not the responsibility of the man himself, how can he learn anything about himself via those actions?

What you say does not seem to make sense to me, but perhaps I am just not understanding you.

21 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I think the idea of "becoming what God intended us to be" is just ideology that means whatever you want it to mean. In the Middle Ages, maybe God intended you to be a peasant. Today, maybe he intends you to be a good suburban housewife with two cars.

Sure. Unless God actually exists and has a plan for your life. In that case you would be incorrect.

21 minutes ago, Era Might said:

I don't believe human growth does or can happen alone, because we are all organisms in an environment. We can only grow and act in our limited environment. In your case, you had sex with your girlfriend...to me, it's silly to sit around fretting about an invisible judge in the sky.

That is another issue I think. I think that it is silly for someone to think "Wouldn't it be nice if there is no God and I can live my life however I want without consequence."

But that is just because we disagree upon the existence and/or nature of God. That is an entirely different debate, I think.

21 minutes ago, Era Might said:

You had sex, you probably enjoyed it, great...but if that's the end of your growth and awareness, it's useless. That's the nature of a relationship...five years from now you may be looking back and thinking, how did I ever get into a relationship with her? That's better than thinking, "wow, five years and I never had sex."

OK. Let's say I go out and rape, rape, and continue to rape. Through those actions I become more and more aware of my own base desires and non-concern for my fellow man. By your definition then raping all of those people would be useful, would it not?

16 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Anyway, sorry, I'm not trying to dissuade you from being Catholic or even dissuade you from abstaining with your girlfriend. Just encouraging you to think deeper, always. Self-knowledge is the "target," to answer your question, what we are striving for. Not book knowledge, not religious knowledge, but self-knowledge...even if your process of self-knowledge leads you to books and religion, it has to come from you, from living. A learned or religious man without self-knowledge is ignorant.

Quite the opposite Era. What you wrote only strengthens my faith. The type of unmoral world that you advocate is not one that I would want to live in. Thank you for your responses.