Break up with my girlfriend?

[MarysLittleFlower]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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.

The Church teaching is about avoiding anything that would tempt to more. I think the best way to look at it is just asking "would I do this if Jesus was in the room". Also I think its best to seek the most perfect thing not just the most you can get away with not saying you do that. But yes the Church teaching seems to be that anything that would regularly tempt to more would be sinful so in any case I'd draw the line there. 

[Era Might]

18 minutes ago, Peace said:

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?

Yes, the purpose of being human is to be human. What else is there? If I'm not being human, or trying to discover what it means to be human, then what's the point of existing? The greatest virtue or the greatest sin means nothing except as part of something larger which we are trying to discover (and usually fail, or are prevented from even trying). Or as St. Paul expresses it:

"If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." (1 Corinthians 13)

Quote

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?

Responsibility for actions is itself the fruit of self-knowledge. As Thoreau put it, "It is a fool's life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before." The supreme virtue of old age is self-knowledge, the realization of everything you thought you were...and weren't. It's not common for us to be responsible for our actions...most of us go through life accepting things as we get them...our jobs, our relationships, our religions. Consciousness and awareness are not guaranteed...that's what makes for a "good" life, to know who you are and what you are, to be able to separate yourself from all the forces that make you, you.

Quote

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?

No, your self-awareness is not guaranteed by action. We often act out of ignorance. But to live at all is to act. Many of us are fortunate to inherit something from others...literature, culture, a mother or father who instilled some sense of life. Others don't, or inherit things not worth inheriting. Self-knowledge is human knowledge, since if you are being yourself, you are being human. Which is to say, self-knowledge is not individual knowledge.

Quote

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.

lol. The unmoral world is the world where you don't know yourself. You said you enjoy being with your girlfriend, you get along, it's a pleasant relationship. To me, that's unmoral. You don't know her, she doesn't know you, you're just passing time together. You can have sex 1,000 times and it doesn't sound like you would know each other, married or unmarried. That's unmoral, to me. Moral is knowing yourself, and taking ownership of your life and your actions. I don't care whether you went to confession or not, I'm more interested in whether you learned anything about yourself or not, and about her.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Era Might

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

19 minutes ago, Era Might said:

Yes, the purpose of being human is to be human. What else is there? If I'm not being human, or trying to discover what it means to be human, then what's the point of existing? The greatest virtue or the greatest sin means nothing except as part of something larger which we are trying to discover (and usually fail, or are prevented from even trying).

 It is fine, but you did not answer the question. I assume that your view is that 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." If this is not correct please let me know.

As for your question - what else is there? I think the first paragraph of the Catechism is instructive:

God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church.

 I will take that over raping babies in a pursuit of self-knowledge any day.

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

 

Quote

Responsibility for actions is itself the fruit of self-knowledge. As Thoreau put it, "It is a fool's life, as they will find when they get to the end of it, if not before." The supreme virtue of old age is self-knowledge, the realization of everything you thought you were...and weren't. It's not common for us to be responsible for our actions...most of us go through life accepting things as we get them...our jobs, our relationships, our religions. Consciousness and awareness are not guaranteed...that's what makes for a "good" life, to know who you are and what you are, to be able to separate yourself from all the forces that make you, you.

 In your view is "who you are and what you are" just the result of your DNA?

 Can you explain to me how killing a person or raping a baby makes one more aware of oneself?

 Can you give me a concrete example from your own life of how you became more "self-aware" of "who you are" by an action that you performed? You had sex with a woman and discovered that you are attracted to women? It sounds a bit juvenile to me, but perhaps I just do not understand you.

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

Quote

No, your self-awareness is not guaranteed by action. We often act out of ignorance. But to live at all is to act. Many of us are fortunate to inherit something from others...literature, culture, a mother or father who instilled some sense of life. Others don't, or inherit things not worth inheriting. Self-knowledge is human knowledge, since if you are being yourself, you are being human. Which is to say, self-knowledge is not individual knowledge.

 I have no idea what you are talking about here. Sorry.

Does anyone else understand this, and if so, could you please explain it to me?

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

 

Quote

lol. The unmoral world is the world where you don't know yourself. You said you enjoy being with your girlfriend, you get along, it's a pleasant relationship. To me, that's unmoral. You don't know her, she doesn't know you, you're just passing time together. You can have sex 1,000 times and it doesn't sound like you would know each other, married or unmarried. That's unmoral, to me. Moral is knowing yourself, and taking ownership of your life and your actions. I don't care whether you went to confession or not, I'm more interested in whether you learned anything about yourself or not, and about her.

What you consider moral is not of particular concern to me, considering that you do not see a distinction between raping a baby and giving money to a homeless person, as long as some kind of BS "self-awareness" is obtained.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Peace

[Era Might]

Just now, Peace said:

What you consider moral is not of particular concern to me, considering that you do not see a distinction between raping a baby and giving money to a homeless person, as long as some kind of BS "self-awareness" is obtained.

lol. Great, you can walk away from this discussion feeling justified that you've defeated my BS and confirmed your worldview. Good luck with your girlfriend.

"And the Ocean God said: Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well? Can one talk about the Tao to a learned philosopher?"

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

1 minute ago, Era Might said:

lol. Great, you can walk away from this discussion feeling justified that you've defeated my BS and confirmed your worldview. Good luck with your girlfriend.

"And the Ocean God said: Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well? Can one talk about the Tao to a learned philosopher?"

 

Good luck with your quest for "self-awareness".

[Era Might]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

 Can you give me a concrete example from your own life of how you became more "self-aware" of "who you are" by an action that you performed? You had sex with a woman and discovered that you are attracted to women? It sounds a bit juvenile to me, but perhaps I just do not understand you.

Just so as to end this on a peaceful note and give a personal example (in the spirit of your OP), yes, I can point to many concrete examples, but the most relevant to your situation would be that I've been married, and discovered what it means to be married, and what it doesn't mean. I don't view marriage (anymore) as a lifelong commitment to suffer and sacrifice. I discovered that marriage only works when both people have self-knowledge, and are in a mutual process of self-knowledge. There's a lot to be said for "working things out" with someone, and it's great if two people can do that, but that may not be possible for many reasons. It's not just a matter of personality. But that's just one example...I've dived deep in the game of life, and have been profoundly humbled to discover the depths of my ignorance, and hope to continue diving deep into that ignorance. The alternative is for me to have done nothing, in the hopes of planning a perfect life, something I neither believe in nor would want if it existed.

[Lilllabettt]

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

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

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.

Pardon me,  no man on earth has ever put me in my place. Relatively few of you can reach my place, even on tippy toes. 

You know Norseman the problem is not what you think it is. The problem is that  most virgin women older than 18 get used to telling men "no"  and suggesting they go to hell. But most virgins-only guys are the kind who like to put women in their place. 

 

 

 

[Norseman82]

Peace, why are you attaching my name to Era's quotes?

10 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

You know Norseman the problem is not what you think it is. The problem is that  most virgin women older than 18 get used to telling men "no"  and suggesting they go to hell. But most virgins-only guys are the kind who like to put women in their place.

And since when did your ignorant remarks in the other thread have to do with "virgins-only"?  Did you fail basic first grade reading comprehension, or are you trying to pull a fast one in order to change the subject?

13 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Pardon me,  no man on earth has ever put me in my place.

 

Maybe that's the whole problem.

[Ash Wednesday]

No need for personal attacks. In fact it would be nice if personal differences from past threads could be set aside at this point so we can just stay on topic. Pretty please and thank you. 

[Lilllabettt]

2 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

No need for personal attacks. In fact it would be nice if personal differences from past threads could be set aside at this point so we can just stay on topic. Pretty please and thank you. 

As you wish. Interested people can read the actual thread in the link I posted earlier. This is an interesting convo and I don't want to disrupt further. I only mentioned anything because of what was said about premarital sex and "contamination" 

[Not A Real Name]

9 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Me too... Its correct

I learned this from very authoritative sources too (that occasion of sin is a sin). I found a section on occaaions of sin from the Baltimore catechism. It even says being unwilling to avoid occasion of sin makes one not ready to confess. I was told its a sin to put yourself into the occasions because its a type of presumption. If something lead you to a mortal sin in the past its possible to do it again because we ARE weak. The Catechism explains in detail about the types of occasion of sin.. 

. 771. What do you mean by the near occasions of sin?

A. By the near occasions of sin I mean all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin.

Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?

A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: "He who loves the danger will perish in it"; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.

Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?

A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?

A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

1. Near occasions, through which we always fall;
2. Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
3. Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and 
4. Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

Q. 775. What persons, places and things are usually occasions of sin?

A.

1. The persons who are occasions of sin are all those in whose company we sin, whether they be bad of themselves or bad only while in our company, in which case we also become occasions of sin for them;
2. The places are usually liquor saloons, low theaters, indecent dances, entertainments, amusements, exhibitions, and all immoral resorts of any kind, whether we sin in them or not;
3. The things are all bad books, indecent pictures, songs, jokes and the like, even when they are tolerated by public opinion and found in public places.

More here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

 

Also I don't know this website but they have some quotes: http://www.catholicessentials.net/occasionsofsin.htm

I would GREATLY recommend that you read the encyclical Casti Connubii on marriage. Have you ever read it? Its probably one of the most useful things to read about marriage for anyone. Just wanted to share our Legion of Mary group is reading it and everyone is really impressed. Its the authentic Catholic teaching on marriage (not our society's view)  and it could clarify a lot of things http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

 

The Summa might have it 

You rock. Thank you.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Era Might said:

Just so as to end this on a peaceful note and give a personal example (in the spirit of your OP), yes, I can point to many concrete examples, but the most relevant to your situation would be that I've been married, and discovered what it means to be married, and what it doesn't mean. I don't view marriage (anymore) as a lifelong commitment to suffer and sacrifice. I discovered that marriage only works when both people have self-knowledge, and are in a mutual process of self-knowledge. There's a lot to be said for "working things out" with someone, and it's great if two people can do that, but that may not be possible for many reasons. It's not just a matter of personality. But that's just one example...

 Thanks.

Quote

I've dived deep in the game of life, and have been profoundly humbled to discover the depths of my ignorance, and hope to continue diving deep into that ignorance. The alternative is for me to have done nothing, in the hopes of planning a perfect life, something I neither believe in nor would want if it existed.

Let's hope that one day you surface from that well of ignorance that you have dived into.

It is interesting to me that you talk about growing as a human or becoming more human. It seems to me that by denying the knowledge of God and the sense of basic morality that every person has you become less and less human and more and more like an animal.

I don't mean to defecate on your whole life or philosophy or anything but that is honestly the way I see it. Two months ago you were talking about how you wanted to follow Jesus and return to the church. Then you seem to have read a few articles or read a book on some obscure philosophical outlook, and two weeks later you reject God and can't see a moral difference between raping a baby and giving money to a homeless person?

That is rather odd. From the standpoint of one Catholic my best guess is to attribute all of this to a demonic force that has twisted your mind.

1 hour ago, Norseman82 said:

Peace, why are you attaching my name to Era's quotes?

My bad. Technical difficulty. Sorry about that. I certainly would not want my name attached to any of that either.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Peace

[Cam42]

I'm kinda lost in this thread...it's going in several different directions.  A couple of things to consider.

1.  This seems small, but it's important.  Get a Catholic Bible.  The ESV is not a good source for Scriptural Study or reading, from a Catholic POV.  I would strongly recommend the RSV-CE.  It will help you to form your conscience properly.

2.  According to the OP, there is mortal sin involved.  Availing oneself to the Sacrament of Penance is necessary.  If that has been accomplished, great, if not, get there.  No judgment, just stating a necessity.

3.  It's important to understand that Christian purity is paramount.  If a slip has been made, it is not irreversible.  It can be returned to, but it is exponentially harder.  I would suggest spiritual direction.  And to not put yourself in a near occasion of sin.  In other words, probably not a good idea to be alone with her until you are certain you can control your passions 100%.  You have shown that you can't, by your own words, so wisdom states that avoiding that is best.

4.  You should be working to convert her heart, soul, and mind.  Your faith is more important than a girl you're dating.

5.  Kissing is overrated.  So, is intercourse.  So, is anything which places your soul in danger.  That includes venial sin.  Confession is never overrated.

So, this all seems to be very elementary, but it answers all of the questions.  There really isn't any reason to be emotional or supportive in any further way than I was before, short of saying that you can work toward perfection.  I will support you prayerfully for the rest of your life.  That is my responsibility as a Catholic.  Thanks for listening....probably too blunt, but you'll find out, I'm very straightforward.

God keep you close.

[Era Might]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

 Thanks.

Let's hope that one day you surface from that well of ignorance that you have dived into.

It is interesting to me that you talk about growing as a human or becoming more human. It seems to me that by denying the knowledge of God and the sense of basic morality that every person has you become less and less human and more and more like an animal.

I don't mean to defecate on your whole life or philosophy or anything but that is honestly the way I see it. Two months ago you were talking about how you wanted to follow Jesus and return to the church. Then you seem to have read a few articles or read a book on some obscure philosophical outlook, and two weeks later you reject God and can't see a moral difference between raping a baby and giving money to a homeless person?

That is rather odd. From the standpoint of one Catholic my best guess is to attribute all of this to a demonic force that has twisted your mind.

My bad. Technical difficulty. Sorry about that. I certainly would not want my name attached to any of that either.

In your mind I can't see a difference. I don't see any profit to debating more. You can only discover life for yourself, I can't teach you, and vice versa, you can't teach me.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

I'm kinda lost in this thread...it's going in several different directions.  A couple of things to consider.

1.  This seems small, but it's important.  Get a Catholic Bible.  The ESV is not a good source for Scriptural Study or reading, from a Catholic POV.  I would strongly recommend the RSV-CE.  It will help you to form your conscience properly.

I have the RSVCE, NAB, Douay-Rheims, and the Knox on my shelf. Is that Catholic enough for you?

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

2.  According to the OP, there is mortal sin involved.  Availing oneself to the Sacrament of Penance is necessary.  If that has been accomplished, great, if not, get there.  No judgment, just stating a necessity.

Thanks. I went. It was a blast.

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

3.  It's important to understand that Christian purity is paramount.  If a slip has been made, it is not irreversible.  It can be returned to, but it is exponentially harder.  I would suggest spiritual direction.  And to not put yourself in a near occasion of sin.  In other words, probably not a good idea to be alone with her until you are certain you can control your passions 100%.  You have shown that you can't, by your own words, so wisdom states that avoiding that is best.

I think that this has already been discussed. Please refer back to the thread.

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

4.  You should be working to convert her heart, soul, and mind.  Your faith is more important than a girl you're dating.

Thanks for the tip. Will do.

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

5.  Kissing is overrated.  So, is intercourse.  So, is anything which places your soul in danger.  That includes venial sin.  Confession is never overrated.

I am a big fan of not going to hell personally. I can't disagree with you there.

2 minutes ago, Cam42 said:

So, this all seems to be very elementary, but it answers all of the questions.  There really isn't any reason to be emotional or supportive in any further way than I was before, short of saying that you can work toward perfection.  I will support you prayerfully for the rest of your life.  That is my responsibility as a Catholic.  Thanks for listening....probably too blunt, but you'll find out, I'm very straightforward.

God keep you close.

Thank you.

10 minutes ago, Era Might said:

In your mind I can't see a difference. I don't see any profit to debating more. You can only discover life for yourself, I can't teach you, and vice versa, you can't teach me.

Oh but you have taught me Era. You really have.