Local Dad Shocked By Sex Charges Against Him (gave daughter condoms)

clickondetroit.com ^

[stuartcr]

Time to go home...the logic games that you enjoy are a nice exercise. Keep trying to prove what you believe...after we're all dead, we'll compare notes.

[Dumb_Ox]

There's no arguement to be had...what is considered good/evil now, most likely was not at some time in the past and maybe in the future...that's just the way it is.

This is patently false. Every man and woman has the natural law written on their hearts. Only the morally blind think, for instance, that killing innocents is good. Moral relativism is the enemy of a free republic. If good and evil are relative, then there is nothing stopping the State from doing what it pleases. If you want to read a full-blown refutation of relativism, I recommend Peter Kreeft's _A Refutation of Moral Relativism_.

Please offer proof that only spouses have the right to sex.

I did, when I said "They have this right because they have already vowed themselves to each other in a gift of self. The act of physical love is the consumation and highest expression of this full gift of self. Spouses' very body language in the conjugal act speaks marriage."

The burden of proof is on you to show that fornicators have this same right.

Fornication that does not result in a pregnancy obviously does not lead to illegitimate children.

But it runs the risk, and such a risk is morally unacceptable. If one has to choose between possibly damaging a child and not damaging one at all, and the only cost to you is the deprivation of a few minutes of pleasure, which is the rational choice? Not damaging a child at all, obviously.

Please offer proof that fornication is an unguided passion, and that a willed commitment is necessary for a man and woman to be satisfied.

You did read my post, right? I said it right here: "Though their[fornicators'] bodies speak the language of total self-gift, they do not give themselves totally to each other by an act of willed committment. Thus they are inconsistent and irrational."

The lynchpin of my argument is that sex is about total self-gift. I say this because of observations about what happens during sex: the woman gives herself to the man, and the man gives himself to the woman. If you want to say something different happens during sex, I'm all ears.

[Aquinasfan]

You cannot logically prove there is a God...

You can convince me if you find the flaws in St. Thomas' "Five Ways," for example.

[stuartcr]

My lynchpin is that I don't believe you are correct....and what you have said, and saying it over and over isn't proof, particularly for those that think differently than you.

[stuartcr]

I have no need or desire to convince anyone of anything...these are simply my observations and respons.

1 - I believe that God always was, always is, and always will be...there was no beginning..nothing was first put into motion, because it always was in motion, and always will be...I don't believe physical laws apply to God.

2 - I believe there always was God and His universe, and always will be, there is/was no beginning or end, to all, God is all. God is the universe.

3 - I do not agree...there is a third object, that is God.....above all else.

4 - One has to apply our earthly qualities..ie beauty, knowledge, goodness etc to God for this to work...I believe God is beyond these earthly qualities, and they do not apply.

5 - I do not believe that we humans know how the entire universe works, because God is the universe. Just because we can observe, doesn't mean we can comprehend.


In his own words..these are what Aquinas believed...there still is not proof, if one believes that God is above our eathly logic. Everything in history has been nothing more than philosophical exercises.

I do not doubt the existence of God, I just have no need for proof...I don't believe God made us capable of understanding him, while we are here on earth, that, I hope, will come after death...what he did give us was the ability to believe and hope.....I am in no hurry to find out, because whatever I believe here on earth for my 70 or 80 years life, really doesn't matter.

As for the fact that I said 'I don't know'..it really doesn't matter if my statement is contradictory, because we are talking about something that is not logical as we know it. My statement still exists, we believe, we do not know.

[Fraulein]

"Schrake...is not permitted to see his three children. Police say as a part of the plea agreement, Schrake must register as a sex offender. He must also continue to go through the court system so he can move back in with his family."

!!!

[Aquinasfan]

Chesterton said that "modern man wants to put everything in order except his thought."

We have to be very rigorous and careful in defining what it is that we believe, because it is very easy to fall into error. For example you stated that:

God is the universe.

That is pantheism, not monotheism. If this were true, then all of us would be part of god. In that case, there would be no good and evil or true and false. All distinctions would be illusion, or "maya," as the Hindus call it.

But there is a contradiction here, because the claims that "god is the universe" and that "good and evil and true and false don't exist" are truth claims. Pantheism is internally contradictory.

[stuartcr]

I believe, in defining our beliefs, there are no errors. We are discussing the unknown...they are just exercises, they define nothing more than how we think about something that cannot be proven. We think and believe as we are individually supposed to.

I believe, when discussing this subject, contradictions are meaningless, as they only pertain to what we know of as logical..I believe God is above our concept of logic. You believe we fall into error, because you believe you are correct...your beliefs cannot be validated, except under your terms. My beliefs cannot be validated at all....You, apparently need validation, I don't.

Pantheism..montheism, it doesn't really matter what anything is called, because we are discussing God, in terms which I don't believe apply...I have no need to define God, besides, I cannot, primarily because I would have to do so in our earthly terms. If, as we both believe, God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then God is good and evil, truth and untruth. Is He the beginning and the end, as many believe? Contradiction, yes, as we know it.

I have a feeling this means a lot to you...so you win...I concede. I'm sure we'll have this discussion again....if it is meant to happen. We should end this discussion, because as you stated earlier, it would go on forever.

[Dumb_Ox]

My lynchpin is that I don't believe you are correct

Then why don't you knock down my arguments? Or are you admitting that your beliefs are irrational and unable to convince?

If we cannot use the force of reason to persuade, all we have left is brute force. And I don't think either of us want to live in a world where brute force is the rule.

[stuartcr]

I have no desire to knock down your arguements...why should I? We're talking about things that cannot be proven. I have already admitted that my beliefs cannot be proven...that's why they are beliefs. As for irrational...what is there about this subject that can be explained rationally or reasonably? resurrection? virgin birth? walking on water? water to wine? I am the beginning and the end?...It's all just a matter of belief...Why do you feel it's necessary to persuade someone of a particular belief?

[Dumb_Ox]

I have no desire to knock down your arguements...why should I?

Out of a desire to lead me to truth? Love of neighbor? Really, if I'm wrong about fornication I'm missing out on a whole lot of pleasure.

We're talking about things that cannot be proven. I have already admitted that my beliefs cannot be proven...that's why they are beliefs.

Now you're just being a dogmatic skeptic. Why not be consistent and doubt your doubt?

All beliefs are not created equal. Some are more true than others. Some beliefs are supported by facts and logic, and thus become knowledge, while other beliefs are simply prejudices.

As for irrational...what is there about this subject that can be explained rationally or reasonably? resurrection? virgin birth? walking on water? water to wine?

You're the one who brought up religion, not me. Your comments deal with Divine revelation--which has supporting reasons itself, though in some cases it is supra-rational, not irrational. I'm talking about what can be known by reason.

It's all just a matter of belief...Why do you feel it's necessary to persuade someone of a particular belief?

Love of neighbor, love of wisdom. Such Love is not contrary to reason, it is one of its prerequisites. I suppose there's a bit of self-love at work, too--those with true beliefs are less a threat to me and mine than those with false beliefs. May I ask why you are trying to convince me that all beliefs are rationally unsupportable? Or are you just writing to see yourself write?

[stuartcr]

I have no desire to lead you anywhere.

I prefer being dogmatically skeptic. Just as you say some beliefs are more true than others..I apply the same to moral beliefs...that is why I believe morals to be relative. For example; Is theft wrong? Is theft wrong when trying to feed your family? Is killing wrong? Is killing wrong when your neighbor has resources that you need? Is it wrong when a govt sanctions it?

I believe religious beliefs are tied in with discussions of morality.

You will have to explain the difference between supra-rational and irrational.

You feel it necessary to persuade others because you love them, or wisdom? I suppose if you could provide proof, then that would be OK, but I don't believe you can. How do you know someone has true beliefs...because they agree with you? I'm not trying to convince you of anything...I'm just asking and answering questions.....and, like many on the web, I do enjoy seeing myself writing.

[JamesA]

Ans America slips further and further past the point of no return...

[vaudine]

Exactly who would be prosecuted if the daughter got codoms at school without dad's knowledge? ok for the state to give them out but not a parent. The problem is that the state wants to replace parents. (Although, I don't like the idea of dad giving them, I believe he was trying to help.)

vaudine