‘Chaste Marriage’ for Today
By: Jim Tonkowich
“Treat yourself,” my friend said. “It will be a shot in the arm for your marriage.” He was encouraging me to read Pius XI’s December 1930 encyclical, Casti Connubii (Chaste Marriage). As it turns out, it’s more than a treat. It’s strong medicine for what ails marriage more than eighty years after it was penned.
Pius XI set out to expound “on the nature and dignity of Christian marriage, on the advantages and benefits which accrue from it to the family and to human society itself, on the errors contrary to this most important point of the Gospel teaching, on the vices opposed to conjugal union, and lastly on the principal remedies to be applied.”
But let’s begin with the title.
To most twenty-first century ears, the title “Chaste Marriage” seems paradoxical if not downright contradictory. We think chastity is a synonym for celibacy. It’s not.
Some, the unmarried primarily, are called to celibacy, that is, abstaining from sex. But everyone, married or single, is called to chastity. Chastity is the virtue that keeps sexuality in its place, subject to God’s revealed will and to reason. And it’s in that context that Pius addresses the nature of marriage.
The most important fact about marriage is that it’s God’s idea. Pius insisted
. . . that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God, the Author of nature, and by Christ Our Lord by Whom nature was redeemed, and hence these laws cannot be subject to any human decrees or to any contrary pact even of the spouses themselves.
Even in the 1930s, the meaning of marriage was up for grabs. Divorce was increasingly commonplace as more countries made it legal and easier to obtain. Couples opted for open marriages and cohabitation, prostitution was widespread, and contraception made it all that much easier. These distortions were then and are now chipping away at marriage.
But it’s not just the libertine side of the culture that has redefined marriage. Many of us in the Church have helped.
My wife and I took our marriage vows thirty-three years ago. We promised . . . actually, we have no idea what specifically we promised. You see, we wrote our own wedding vows, and while they must be around here someplace, we can’t find them…
Reflecting on Pius’s remedies, I’m reminded of what G.K. Chesterton wrote about Christianity: “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried.” Similarly, Pius XI’s remedies for what ails marriage—remedies set forth more than eighty years ago—have not been tried and found wanting. They have been found difficult and not tried. As a result, marriage has been in a slow death spiral for over a century. Beginning with individual marriages and with the Church, it’s time to learn, teach, and live the biblical vision of marriage and family.
Loading ...
“that matrimony was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man were the laws made to strengthen and confirm and elevate it but by God,”
So in other words this “brilliant” panacea for marriage has absolutely zero relevance for those who don’t believe in the Christian god.
When are you guys gonna stop even pretending that this is a secular cause?
@Roivas God exists whether or not you choose to accept it. But the issue is not relegated just to the religious realm – it is also the natural realm and whether homosexual behavior is what the body was designed for.
“it is also the natural realm and whether homosexual behavior is what the body was designed for.”
It is also the natural realm and whether car driving behavior is what the foot was designed for.
It is also the natural realm and whether reading book behavior is what the hand was designed for.
It is also the natural realm and whether left handed behavior is what the body was designed for.
How is the notion of Christian god driven marriage relevant to non-christians?
When man invented the gods, and then later found it easier to have just one of them, he didn’t anticipate how much trouble this would cause everyone. Using religion to harm others has been a major cause of worldly distress.
Of course this is just a belief, and not rooted in facts, research or anything tangible.
@MrRoivas You have a real problem with logic, don’t you?
@Sean Another assertion by Sean that has nothing to do with reality.
You have a real problem actually stating an argument rather than snide insults, don’t you?
@Bob Barnes Yes, plenty of research demonstrates that God exists, but skeptics and atheists refuse to acknowledge them. The whole universe screams “DESIGN” yet you think matter has been eternal.
Glenn, who designed God?
@Sean
Sean, God has no beginning. He always was.
Logically, there are only two choices, “intelligent” design and “unintelligent” design.
And, the problem with “unintelligent” design is that its unintelligent.
@MrRoivas
“How is the notion of Christian god driven marriage relevant to non-christians?”
Because God made men men and women women whether they acknowledge Him or not.
@Sean
“Glenn, who designed God?”
I hope I get to heaven before you Sean, so I can watch God answer that question for you.
That is like asking, “What caused the first cause?”
To me, the best answer is that the first cause would have been uncaused.
Once we accept an uncaused first cause, however, we imply that a causal agent exists beyond the realm of known physics.
Your question reduces to a non-sequitur because it tries to apply a physical law of cause and effect to something uncaused.
Indeed, your question allows two answers. Either something higher than God designed God, or God is eternal and simply beyond our comprehension, which is what the Bible teaches.
That marriage is a universal institution including pre-Christian and non-theistic societies such as those influenced by Confucianism (and it is historically virtually always a heterosexual institution) suggests that it is more than a religious invention, that it has a basis in natural law or successful societal evolution or both. That it has such a basis does not deny the possibility that it has a true religious basis as well.
bman, you conveniently choose to use “logic” to explain phenomena, and then dismiss it when convenient to do so. If some God is the cause of stuff, like the creation of humans, why not ponder who or what created God, and then who or what created the thing that created God?
It’s not very convincing to dismiss inquiry simply because you find inquiry inconvenient to your theory. We have no evidence that god exists, yet s/he is responsible for a great deal of the world, in your opinion. Yet asking how s/he came about is off limits, dismissed with a shrug and a smug “S/he has always existed!” Odd.
“Sean, God has no beginning. He always was.”
Oh, ok. Well humans have no beginning, they always were. Ok?
@Sean
Prove that God doesn’t exist.
You seem to have ignored my post rather than answered it. For example, I said its a non-sequitur to apply the law of cause and effect to the first cause. The first cause can only be first if its uncaused by anything prior. So where is your answer to that?
And so, there was no “dismissal” on my part as you claim, but ignoring what I said seems to exist on your part.
Also, when you asked, “who or what created God, and who or what created the thing that created God” you essentially asked, “what is the first cause of all things.”
But I already answered that when I said the first cause of all things would be uncaused.
Of course you can choose to believe an unintelligent first cause resulted in the order and complex design of the universe, but as many creationists have said, that is like saying a tornado can pass through a junk yard and produce a 747 jet. It takes more blind faith to believe in unintelligent design, than it does intelligent design.
[That marriage is a universal institution including pre-Christian and non-theistic societies such as those influenced by Confucianism (and it is historically virtually always a heterosexual institution) suggests that it is more than a religious invention, that it has a basis in natural law or successful societal evolution or both. ]
This may be true but is also largely irrelevant since no one is talking about ending marriage, just changing who can get married. Who is eligble for marriage has changed too many times to count over the history humanity and yet here we are. Marriage is like murder and theft, the concept is universal but the defintion varries hugely from society to society and age to age. You can argue for the universality of the concept but not the form.
Here is a section from a course I wrote demonstrating that God does exist:
Let’s talk about First Principles. In the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Dr. Norman Geisler says this: “First principles are the foundation of knowledge. Without them nothing could be known. Even coherentism uses the first principle of non-contradiction to test the coherence of its system. Realism affirms that first principles apply to the real world. First principles undeniably apply to reality.”
So just what are “first principles”? Again, according to Geisler, “First principles are undeniable or reducible to the undeniable. They are either self-evident or reducible to the self-evident. And self-evident principles are either true by their nature or undeniable because the predicate is reducible to the subject. That the predicate is reducible to the subject means that one cannot deny the principle without using it.” So now that we’ve had that mouthful, let’s look at twelve basic first principles as noted by Geisler:
1. Being Is. This is known as the principle of existence. Simply put, if you are a being, you exist.
2. Being Is Being. The principle of identity. You are you.
3. Being is not Nonbeing. The principle of non-contradiction. You can’t be you and not you at the same time. A thing cannot be its opposite.
4. Either Being or Nonbeing. Excluded middle. You either are a Being or you are a Nonbeing – there is no in between.
5. Nonbeing cannot cause Being. The principle of causality. If something does not exist, it is not a Being, and therefore it cannot cause a Being. You have to exist to cause something else. With this principle we see that there must be a cause for all that is.
Now we can look at contingent and necessary beings:
6. Contingent Being cannot cause Contingent Being. Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
Geisler puts it this way: “If something cannot be caused by nothing (5), neither can anything be
caused by what could be nothing, namely, a contingent being. For what could be nothing does not account for its own existence. And what cannot account for even its own existence cannot
account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it
cannot be that on which something else depends for its being. Hence, one contingent being cannot cause another contingent being.”
7. Only Necessary Being can cause a Contingent Being. This is known as the positive principle of modality. In other words, whatever comes to be must be caused by a Necessary Being, a being that is not contingent on anything else.
8. Necessary Being cannot cause a Necessary Being. The negative principle of modality. By definition, a Necessary Being cannot not be. If it had to come about by another being, then it isn’t necessary!
9. Every Contingent Being is Caused by a Necessary Being. This principle is called existential causality. Geisler explains: “All contingent beings need a cause. For a contingent being is something that is but could not be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not
account for its own existence. That is, in itself there is no basis explaining why it exists rather than does not exist.”
10. Necessary Being exists. The principle of existential necessity. This logically follows from principles number 1 and 5. Since something exists (no.1) it has to be one of three things: all contingent, all necessary, or some of both. The last two choices require a necessary being, while the first choice isn’t possible by principle 5 since by principle 6 it is possible to not exist. Now Geisler sums this up nicely: “For if all being(s) is (are) contingent, then it is possible for all being(s) not to exist. That is, a state of total nothingness is possible. But something now undeniably exists (e.g., I do), as demonstrated from premise no. 1. And nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). Therefore it is not possible…for there to have been a state of total nothingness. But if it is impossible for nothing to exist (since something does exist), then something necessarily exists (i.e., a Necessary Being does exist). To put it another way, if something exists and if nothing cannot cause something, then it follows that something must exist necessarily. For if something did not necessarily exist, then nothing would have caused the something that does exist. Since it is impossible for nothing to cause something, then it is necessary for something to always have been.” WOW! That’s a pretty deep thought to get a handle on, but stick with me to the end and it will all fall into place.
11. Contingent Being exists. The principle of existential contingency. The philosophy behind this one can get to be very wordy, but it can be summed up by saying that not everything that exists is necessary.
12. Necessary Being is similar to similar Contingent Being(s) it causes. This last one is the principle of analogy. For a good understanding of this one, I will again cite Dr. Geisler: “Only Necessary Being can cause or produce only a contingent being. For to ‘cause’ or ‘produce’ being means to bring something into being. Something that comes into being, has being. A cause cannot bring nonbeing into being, since being is not nonbeing (4). The fact that Being produces being implies that there is an analogy (similarity) between the cause of being and the being it causes (8). But a contingent being is both similar and different from a Necessary Being. It is similar in that both have being. It is different in that one is necessary and the other is contingent. But whatever is both similar and different is analogous. Hence, there is an analogy between Necessary Being and the being it produces. Two things, then, are entailed in the principle that Necessary Being causes being: First, the effect must resemble the cause, since both are being. The cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess. Second, while the effect must resemble its cause in its being…it must also be different from it in its potentiality. For the cause (a Necessary Being), by its very nature, has no potential not to be. But the effect (a contingent being) by its very nature has the potential not to be. Hence, a contingent being must be different from its Cause. Since, the Cause of contingent beings must be both like and different from its effect, it is only similar. Hence, there is an analogical likeness between the Cause of a contingent being and the contingent being it causes to exist.”
Okay, now that we’ve learned all about First Principles, let’s put together what all this has to do with discovering if God exists. Let’s take it step by step by quoting Dr. Geisler, and this should be easier to follow:
1. Something exists (e.g., I do) (no.1).
2. I am a contingent being (no.11).
3. Nothing cannot cause something (no. 5).
4. Only a Necessary Being can cause a contingent being (no.7).
5. Therefore, I am caused to exist by a Necessary Being (follows from nos. 1-4).
6. But I am a personal, rational, and moral kind of being (since I engage in these kinds of
activities).
7. Therefore, this Necessary Being must be a personal, rational, and moral kind of being, since I am similar to him by the Principle of Analogy (no.12).
8. But a Necessary Being cannot be contingent (i.e., not-necessary) in its being which would be a contradiction (no.3).
9. Therefore, this Necessary Being is personal, rational, and moral in a necessary way, not in a contingent way.
10. This Necessary Being is also eternal, uncaused, unchanging, unlimited, and one, since a
Necessary Being cannot come to be, be caused by another, undergo change, be limited by any possibility of what it could be (a Necessary Being has no possibility to be other than it is), or to be more than one Being (since there cannot be two infinite beings).
11. Therefore, one necessary, eternal, uncaused, unlimited (=infinite), rational, personal, and moral being exists.
12. Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.
13. Therefore, the theistic God exists.
@Mont
Actually the form of marriage has remained remarkably constant over the centuries. No society has considered adultery or divorce a trivial matter. Adultery was always viewed negatively and divorce, when allowed, was considered a sign of failure. Until recently marriage was by overwhelming consensus heterosexual. It still is considered so in most of the world. Gays can, of course, marry under traditional definitions of marriage, so it is a question of redefinition not a question of who is allowed to marry. There are societies that did not prohibit homosexual relations, but they didn’t call those relationships marriages. Polygamy has been to most common challenge to Western concepts of marriage.
Interesting and strange that you would bring up theft and murder. There is a remarkable consensus about murder, theft, and marriage, and therefore a considerable burden rests with those who would redefine any of those linguistic and legal concepts, especially if they attempt to do so without the consent of the governed. It is the thief and the murderer who would be happy to redefine theft and murder if they could.
@Mont D. Law
“This may be true but is also largely irrelevant since no one is talking about ending marriage, just changing who can get married. Who is eligble for marriage has changed too many times to count over the history humanity and yet here we are. Marriage is like murder and theft, the concept is universal but the defintion varries hugely from society to society and age to age. You can argue for the universality of the concept but not the form.”
Wow, I could have written that myself! That’s exactly right, every sentence is true. The concept of marriage is children. Matrimony means “mother-making” and that is so well understood we don’t even realize that that’s what it means. Like we don’t have to think that murder means ending someone’s life, and theft means taking someone’s belongings. Marriage means making a woman into a mother, by having sex and procreating together.
The current controversy is the same as all the other ones, should we let people make children with someone of the same sex or not?
[Actually the form of marriage has remained remarkably constant over the centuries. No society has considered adultery or divorce a trivial matter. Adultery was always viewed negatively and divorce, when allowed, was considered a sign of failure.]
This is not the case. Almost all tribal cultures privlidge kinship ties over marital ones particularly those practicing matrilocal endogamy. Divorce in these cultures is, if not trivial, then standard. There is no failure involved.Classical Athens had easy divorce laws as did the later Roman Empire. A large number of modern Muslims endorse a form of time limited contract marriage eliminating a wide rang of behaviors from the catergory of sin.
[Interesting and strange that you would bring up theft and murder. There is a remarkable consensus about murder, theft, and marriage, ...]
While every society has defined murder, theft and marriage, those definitions vary wildly from culture to culture. Child sacrfice in pre-Columbian culture was not murder, killing someone in duel in 17th century France was not murder, killing a disobedient slave in 18th century Alabama was not murder. Theft and marriage work the same way.
I am sorry if I was unclear. I brought them up because they illustrate my point.
[Gays can, of course, marry under traditional definitions of marriage, so it is a question of redefinition not a question of who is allowed to marry. There are societies that did not prohibit homosexual relations, but they didn’t call those relationships marriages.]
This is also not the case. There are any number of historical examples of cultures accomadating same sex marriages without much fuss. These couples were simply absorbed in the cultures tradition of marriage.
[...and therefore a considerable burden rests with those who would redefine any of those linguistic and legal concepts, especially if they attempt to do so without the consent of the governed.]
And so we have the discussion we are having now and will likely have again. So far your system is working it all out as it was designed to do. The fact that your majority status doesn’t guaranty you victory is the fault of the enlightenment scholars that designed your Republic. They tried to protect vulnerable citizens from the tyrany of the majority, with some sucess.
“Prove that God doesn’t exist.”
Prove that she does. The null state is always the starting point. Besides, it’s far easier to prove something exists than that something doesn’t exist. So you go first, ok?
“The first cause can only be first if its uncaused by anything prior. So where is your answer to that?”
Again, it is convenient, but not convincing, to simply decide that God has always been in existence. Why not just say that humans have always been in existence, too? Why have humans created by some other entity, but let that other entity always have existed? Why not have some entity have created God?
“Of course you can choose to believe an unintelligent first cause resulted in the order and complex design of the universe, but as many creationists have said, that is like saying a tornado can pass through a junk yard and produce a 747 jet. It takes more blind faith to believe in unintelligent design, than it does intelligent design.”
Evolution and physics explain the complexity of life and of things. It takes far more faith to believe that some unseen deity exists and is responsible for designing things, than to apply principles of evolution and physics to explain how life and the universe unfolded.
You appear to believe that what we see as an ordered world is the product of design. If so, then God must be near-sighted to have created such a flawed world, and such faulty creatures as human beings. Or he has a nasty sense of humor!
“Actually the form of marriage has remained remarkably constant over the centuries.”
Not really, although the constant of one man, one woman has remain mostly constant. Why? Because most societies condemn homosexuality, precluding the formation of same-sex couples. Ergo, it is not that marriage must be between one man and one woman for any rational reason, but rather, its history is defined as such because of an externality: that same-sex couples rarely, if at all, existed.
We’ve been down this road before: mixed-race marriages were prohibited, as a symptom of society’s distaste for, and desire to discourage, mixed-race couples and sexual relations. There wasn’t, and isn’t, any particular notion of marriage that precluded mixed-race marriages. Same with same-sex marriages: the issue is really about disapproval of same-sex couples, and prohibiting same-sex marriage is merely an expression of that disapproval.
“There is a remarkable consensus about murder, theft, and marriage, and therefore a considerable burden rests with those who would redefine any of those linguistic and legal concepts, especially if they attempt to do so without the consent of the governed.”
There may be a remarkable consensus about murder and theft, specifically society’s abhorrence of them, but there is hardly a consensus about what marriage is, and specifically about whether to legalize same-sex marriage or not. Recent polls have shown that most Americans support legal same-sex marriage, by a small margin, and a clear majority favor either same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions for gay and lesbian Americans. Many Americans oppose equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. So consensus around what marriage is, and who it’s for, does not exist.
The premise that the majority has the right to determine the rights of a minority is a false one. The majority opposed mixed-race marriage unequivocally when the US Supreme Court unanimously struck down prohibitions against mixed-race marriage. Why? Because our nation’s constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally and have access to due process rights. The courts have consistently rejected the notion of “majority rules” when civil and constitutional rights are at issue.
My personal observation is that while I have seen marriages that we so broken that they were rightly dissolved, I have never seen a happy divorce. I have also seen marriages that were “good enough” and should have endured, but did not, in violation of generally accepted rules of beneficence and loyalty. No child looks forward to getting divorced. If the enlightenment goal is to protect innocent and vulnerable citizens, it has been failing to protect women as divorce rates have risen with no fault divorce, leading to the feminization of poverty in the U.S.
Divorce was allowed in ancient Athens, but it also required the return of the dowry, a potentially bankrupting event. A magistrate could also determine if there were insufficient grounds for divorce. We have rather limited ability to investigate divorce statistics in ancient Athens (or in primitive tribal societies), but we do have the ability to investigate modern Islam in America, and it is clear that while divorce is allowed in Islam, it is discouraged. The divorce rate among North American Muslims is less than among Americans in general, despite the fact that on paper Islamic divorce looks very easy. I invite you discuss divorce with the members of your local mosque and with the imam to find the true consensus view, not the exceptions to the rule.
There is clearly a consensus gentium on murder, theft, the heterosexual nature of marriage, and the desirability of long-lasting marriage, the protection of the vulnerable innocents, etc., a consensus clearly accepted by leading thinkers in the enlightenment. Despite exceptions (which were often condemned and denounced by contemporaries, perhaps supported by a majority of the people, just not by the elites), how do you explain the consensus? Is there an underlying natural law that most people at most times recognize? Is there one common civilization whose unfortunate variants eventually die off as maladaptive, as in the case of child sacrifice?
Glenn, sorry….”Such a Being is appropriately called “God” in the theistic sense, because he possesses all the essential characteristics of a theistic God.”, does not work. Theism is a belief, a faith, not scientifically proven. You certainly are entitled to believe what you will…and even give it a name (God) but, that’s where it ends. Atheism is also a belief, a faith….and only that, too.
No. Aztec civilization survived for 100s of years, despite human sacrifice.
Slavery was normal for thousands of years. These last 150 years are the aberration in terms of proportion.
@Sean @Roivas
I am waiting for either of you to prove that God does not exist.
@Leo
“My personal observation is that while I have seen marriages that we so broken that they were rightly dissolved, I have never seen a happy divorce.”
As an attorney who takes on an occasional family law case, I can say that my personal observation is that while I have seen divorces that were antagonistic and miserable experiences, I have also absolutely seen happy divorces! I have had people hug each other after the uncontested hearing and declare that they are best friends. It does happen. Divorce is not always a bitter and vengeful affair–some people know how to do it with maturity and respect for each other. Of course, that is the benefit of no-fault divorce laws–people may reach the amicable decision to divorce without having to prove in court that their spouse is a cheating, abusive, and/or otherwise terrible person.
Deb, I am waiting for you too prove God exists. If you knew anything about logic, you would know that you can’t prove a negative.
[My personal observation is that while I have seen marriages that we so broken that they were rightly dissolved, I have never seen a happy divorce.]
I’m not sure how your personal observation is relevant in a discussion of the universality of marriage over human history.
[There is clearly a consensus gentium on murder, theft, the heterosexual nature of marriage, and the desirability of long-lasting marriage, the protection of the vulnerable innocents, etc., a consensus clearly accepted by leading thinkers in the enlightenment.]
This is also not true and makes my point. There was a consensus on these issues in 18th century America that is very different from the consensus in 20th century America. In the 18th century it was not murder when the sitting Vice-President killed the former Secretary of the Treasury in a duel. After the slave rebellion in 1831 the wide spread killing of slaves in retaliation was not condemned as murder, but theft.
Again, there are many universal concepts that seem to exist consistently over time in human society. However in individual societies the expression these universals is so diverse that using the universal concept to argue for the expression you favour is pointless.
@Roivas
I am still waiting.
I am so stupid, Roivas, that I need your wisdom to show me that my belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing God is false. Are you up to the challenge? Or would you rather insinuate my stupidity again?
This statement above is a negative that you cannot prove.
Burden of proof is on the person advancing the positive idea, like that of God or dinosaurs.
Look it up if you don’t believe me.
So until you articulate your argument, you really shouldn’t throw stones.
But you want the short, sweet and simple?
I have yet to see any proof of an all powerful, all good, all knowing individual who deeply cares about which holy book we read or how we conduct our sex life.
To people who don’t believe in God, I always want to ask, then what do you think about miracles? They happen. How do you explain that?
Define miracles.
And when and where they have happened.
@Sean Sean I proved to you by first principles that God has to exist, and it isn’t a “she.” Did you bother reading my proof?
@Rich You can’t scientifically prove your statements to be true.
Seriously? You don’t know what miracles are? You don’t know how to google? Then nevermind. Why do I bother?
[Seriously? You don’t know what miracles are? You don’t know how to google?]
I googled miracles and found hundreds of thousands.
Did you know that Indonesian Mosques stood through earthquake and Tsunami even though all the churches were destroyed?
Did you know that Allah have written his name all over the world and it can only be seen from space. On the continent of Africa, in the oceans, on Whistler Mountain and he has even caused plants & trees to grow in the shape of his name.
Did you know that Allah compels the animals to speak for him.
Did you know that Allah heals so many sick people using the Koran that Islam doesn’t even consider it a miracle any more!
Well, then. Pick one.
“I am waiting for either of you to prove that God does not exist.”
Keep waiting. I am under no obligation to prove that something doesn’t exist. My position is the null hypothesis: that something with no evidence of existence does not exist. You, however, are faced with proving that something with no evidence DOES exist. Your challenge awaits!
“Sean I proved to you by first principles that God has to exist, and it isn’t a “she.” Did you bother reading my proof?”
Sort of, and it didn’t prove anything. Least of all whether your god is a he or a she.
So what? I have yet to find an onion that tastes yummy. That’s my opinion. You are just one person. The above statement is an opinion.
Let me ask you this: do emotions exist? I believe they do, but I cannot prove it with anything material. I cannot hold love in my hands.
Prove that emotions exist.
Miracles. They don’t happen. Simple as that.
Pfft. Millions of people disagree with you, but hey, what does that matter because you’re Roivas, the backwards “savior.” How apropos.
Millions of people also think that Mohamed is the one true prophet, and yet I don’t see you converting. So you have to do better than that.
Like maybe bringing in some supposedly proven miracles. Or something other than a smug evasion.
How about Life? Isn’t life a miracle enough? And consciousness? And conception of life? That’s the most far out one. That new life is created, from old life reproducing through sex, to create bodies that grow and become men and women themselves, and that experience life and living. Please don’t tell me that isn’t a miracle.
@Roivas
Can you make a tree?
Can you make anything from nothing?
Everything is a miracle.
Depends on your definition of miracle.
Does it defy the laws of physics in such a way as to render supernatural intervention the only method of it happening? No, of course not.
Everything living conceives. Dogs do, lizards do, wasps planting eggs in live caterpillars to devour them alive do.
Will I hear you now wax rhapsodic on the incredible miracle of the reproduction of syphilis in the human brain?
As for Anne, if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle as well. A category that contains everything is by definition useless.
Even ignoring that, is the fact that my clothes get stinky and need washing now a miracle? That I wait at traffic lights? That my sister nearly killed my mother in child birth? That my uncle died from cancer, leaving behind a wife and child?
Or are we supposed to ignore those bits of “everything?”
@Roivas
“As for Anne, if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle as well.
A category that contains everything is by definition useless.”
I can’t decide which of those two statements makes less sense to me.
As for the rest of your comment:
Can you make your clothes from nothing?
Can you make a smell?
Can you make your sister?
Your mother?
Childbirth?
Cancer?
They are all part of everything (which contrary to your personal opinion is not useless as a concept). And yes, they are all miracles.
@Roivas
Everything is a miracle, but we don’t call everything a miracle if we think we understand it and can explain it with natural (not-supernatural) forces. And we don’t like to celebrate and glorify God when He does things we don’t like, such as traffic lights and cancer, but we should glorify God and thank God even for bad things.
You know what I find interesting about this “sweet and simple” answer? It’s that when mentioning about what an all-knowing individual cares about – you mention sex. SEX. War, famine, disease, and natural disasters happening don’t cause you doubt in God. No, it’s the sex piece. You don’t want God limiting your sexual license, so you don’t believe He exists.
Don’t try to come back and cover up and say that disease and famine make you not believe in God. It’s too late now.
And I am still waiting for you to prove that emotions exist.
And that’s the rub, roivas. You statement above is where atheism leads to… nothing, uselessness, despair. I mean if everything is random, like stinky clothes and cancer, and in the end we just die and turn to dust, then it is all rather useless, no?
But in Christ everything is useful, even stinky clothes and cancer. We can use all events in our lives to unite ourselves to Him and His cross- His great love. And through using everything for Him we grow in love and then we die and live in perfect happiness. Life ceases to be useless and random and becomes a miracle.
You can choose either road.
I’ll give you an idea of what I mean.
Everything is in the category glafakfas. How is the category glafakfas defined? It is everything.
Categories need distinguishing characteristics. A category by definition must be exclusive. Otherwise it isn’t a category. Thus your definition of miracles is self contradictory.
I can’t make clothes from nothing, but others can, depending on your definition of nothing.
I make smells all the time. That’s why I shower and change clothes.
I can’t make a sister sure, but my parents were quite capable at the job.
Same thing, but with my grandparents.
From what I could gather online, live births go back 100s of millions of years. So you can thank whatever organism that stumbled upon the practice for that.
My body, your body, practically every adult’s body is producing potentially cancerous cells all the time. Our body has a mechanism for the explicit purpose of killing off diseased cells. We get cancer when that fails.
So I fail to see your point.
“And that’s the rub, roivas. You statement above is where atheism leads to… nothing, uselessness, despair. I mean if everything is random, like stinky clothes and cancer, and in the end we just die and turn to dust, then it is all rather useless, no?”
Nice non sequitur. But I’ll play.
How would randomness indicate uselessness? Why?
And yes, I will die and turn to dust. As will you. How does this prevent meaning? I find my life incredibly meaningful. I have a family I love(mostly), good friends, and intellectual pursuits that engage me, as well as more base ones. I plan on becoming a psychiatrist to help people with mental problems overcome their issues. I plan on marrying someday, and perhaps having children. If that strikes you as emptiness, I’m not sure what to tell you.
My dad plays the piano. He has lessons weekly, and practices every day. Yet he is never going to perform in public, will never have anyone other than his family listen to him play. Does this mean that it is useless? No, for him the very act of playing the instrument is purposeful and meaningful.
As for your just approved comment, all I have to say is this:
Ever seen a photo of an MRI?
@Roivas
I’m just wondering, if you are producing smells and cancer cells that you don’t want, why don’t you just stop?
By nothing, I mean nothing.
Your sister was not made by your parents out of nothing. She came into being when your parents brought together what their bodies produced through no effort on their part.
I’m not at all uncertain of what a category is or it’s purpose in discussion. But since I was discussing everything, the concept of categories was entirely irrelevant.
How is it Roivas, that you are happy to discuss “glafakfas” and yet you struggle with the concepts of everything, nothing and create?
“I’m not at all uncertain of what a category is or it’s purpose in discussion.”
“Everything is a miracle.”
Because I was showing how the second statement is self contradictory and meaningless as declaring everything glafakfas. The fact you don’t understand that after careful explanation isn’t my fault.
No effort on their part? Sex doesn’t count as effort? Nine months of pregnancy? 22 hours of nearly deadly labor? If that doesn’t count as effort, I would love to know what your definition of that word is.
And the reason I am “struggling” with certain words you are using is because they seem to have very different meanings for you than me, and much of the rest of the world. So you if really want me to understand them in the same sense you do, then I kindly suggest defining their meaning to you.
“The most important fact about marriage is that it’s God’s idea”
Ok, now, even if that were true, the state is the organization that administers marriage. And the state can’t, in this country, ask God how he would like things done.
@Roivas
You certainly are selective Roivas:
I’m still wondering why you don’t stop producing cancer cells and body odor.
@Anne
Your sister was not made by your parents out of nothing. She came into being when your parents brought together what their bodies produced through no effort on their part.
@Roivas
“No effort on their part? Sex doesn’t count as effort?”
@Betsy (from another thread)
“Basic grammar knowledge states that when pronouns are used, they refer back to the most recently used noun or noun phrase.”
“….what their bodies produced (egg and sperm) through no effort on their part.” What their bodies produce is not the same as what is produced when their bodies come together.
@Roivas
“Everything is in the category glafakfas.”
No, everything is not in any category. Everything is the total or entiretyof all categories.
I can’t conciously do so, yes. Now I kindly ask whether there’s some kind of point you wish to make, which you continue to refuse to specify.
As well as refusing to say what specialized meanings you have for many of the words you use.
“No, everything is not in any category. Everything is the total or entirety of all categories.”
You’re right. And that’s exactly my point.
A miracle is a part of the category miracles. Some things can be classified as miracles, others cannot. Thus everything cannot be a miracle. Glad to see we are finally on the same page here.
“What their bodies produce is not the same as what is produced when their bodies come together.”
And yet you still haven’t refuted my point.
Tell me, if my parents had simply laid separately on a bed with no effort, how long would it have taken to conceive?
@Roivas
“Depends on your definition of miracle.”
“depending on your definition of nothing.”
“Everything is in the category glafakfas”
“what specialized meanings you have for many of the words you use.”
Get a dictionary.
“if everything is a miracle, then nothing is a miracle as well.”
And a geometry textbook.
“I make smells all the time.”………….”I can’t conciously do so, yes.” “Does it defy the laws of physics in such a way as to render supernatural intervention the only method of it happening?”
No, it doesn’t defy the laws of physics because the laws of physics simply observe what occurs in nature. Since nature has come into existence through no effort of anything in nature, then yes, the only method of everything (look it up if you still don’t know what evertything means) coming into being, is supernatural intervention. God.
Read a physics book from the last 20 years, and you’ll learn that isn’t true.
Quantum mechanics allows for the creation of entire new, random, uncaused particles. The same applies for the beginning of the universe with the big bang.
“Get a dictionary.”
I would if it helped. But you insist on using your own special meanings, so I am a bit in the dark.
@Roivas
“allows for the creation of entire new, random, uncaused particles.”
allows?
random?
uncaused?
Is that your god? Quantum mechanics?
If your premis for life is that it is uncaused and random, and dictated by what quantum mechanics allows, then why are you here on this blog?
I can’t see purpose or order or Love under a microscope. But I know they exist. Perhaps you should put your physics book aside for a while and consider that you act with a purpose whether or not quantum mechanics allows it. Life is much bigger than what quantum physics allows.
premise
I have taken quantum mechanics from some of the finest physical chemists in the nation within the last ten years and I am not sure where you get the above information from.
You need to back this up. And please feel free to be specific, I’ll understand the technical jargon.
“You need to back this up. And please feel free to be specific, I’ll understand the technical jargon.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/uncaused.html
Here you go.
And that’s impressive about what your studying. I don’t pretend to understand QM on anymore the most superficial of levels.
“If your premis for life is that it is uncaused and random, and dictated by what quantum mechanics allows, then why are you here on this blog?
I can’t see purpose or order or Love under a microscope. But I know they exist. Perhaps you should put your physics book aside for a while and consider that you act with a purpose whether or not quantum mechanics allows it. Life is much bigger than what quantum physics allows.”
I have already stated that I find meaning in life previously in this thread. Just a few posts up. Here it is again:
And yes, I will die and turn to dust. As will you. How does this prevent meaning? I find my life incredibly meaningful. I have a family I love(mostly), good friends, and intellectual pursuits that engage me, as well as more base ones. I plan on becoming a psychiatrist to help people with mental problems overcome their issues. I plan on marrying someday, and perhaps having children. If that strikes you as emptiness, I’m not sure what to tell you.
My dad plays the piano. He has lessons weekly, and practices every day. Yet he is never going to perform in public, will never have anyone other than his family listen to him play. Does this mean that it is useless? No, for him the very act of playing the instrument is purposeful and meaningful.
@Roivas
I saw the comment the first time you posted it. I see your plans and certainly they appear meaningful.
Life has a way of getting in the way of plans. You might find that one day your life will take a traumatic turn, or several, that all of your intellectual pursuits and planning may leave you fully unprepared to deal with. And your outsanding intellect and all the metaphysical and social science in the world will fail you in your efforts to comprehend the purpose for your situation.
Then, if you are half as smart as you think you are (and appear to be), you will realize that the Author of Purpose is present in a far more powerful and meaningful way than the limited physcial dimensions you wish to define (or dismiss) Him by. I pray for your sake, that you will allow your heart and mind to remain open to His presence. He has put us here. And He longs to be with us. And all that it takes for The Most Loving and Compassionate of All Beings to be present with humanity, is for humanity to allow Him to be.
“Life has a way of getting in the way of plans. You might find that one day your life will take a traumatic turn, or several, that all of your intellectual pursuits and planning may leave you fully unprepared to deal with.”
My parents had a divorce, my uncle died from cancer, and recently one of my family’s best friends died because of a heart attack from a unknown genetic anomaly.
All of these things have left their mark on me. And yet none of them had me yearning for an all powerful being to take care of me. If that is your response, don’t assume that I am similar.
“You will realize that the Author of Purpose is present in a far more powerful and meaningful way than the limited physcial dimensions you wish to define (or dismiss) Him by. I pray for your sake, that you will allow your heart and mind to remain open to His presence.”
And if I did so, and concluded that Allah is god and Mohamed his one true prophet, would you start to rethink your faith or shake your head and conclude that I Was Doing It Wrong?
…or, you could just stay bitter and angry.
@Roivas
“And if I did so, and concluded that Allah is god and Mohamed his one true prophet, would you start to rethink your faith or shake your head and conclude that I Was Doing It Wrong?”
No. There is no doubt in my mind that God is willing to be addressed and more than able to respond to us in whatever language we choose to speak and listen to Him in.
How willing any one person is to be truly directed by God has far less to do with the doctrine they adopt than with humility they implore.
@Roivas
The article you cited is not new (it was published in 1988. Scientifically speaking-it’s older than dirt) nor is it necessarily quantum mechanics (it is more of a philosophy article). So saying “Read a physics book from the last 20 years” to Anne was false. Never once in my experience, which you have admitted is more than yours, have I been taught that there are “new, random, uncaused particles.”
Interesting to note, though, that the author keeps referring to the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Belgian priest, Georges Lemaitre, a man who believed in God. But the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory.
“But the Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory.”
So is gravity. Going to jump off a building anytime soon to disprove it?
“Never once in my experience, which you have admitted is more than yours, have I been taught that there are “new, random, uncaused particles.”
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html
Right here. Article updated last in 2011.
And another one.
http://www.philosophos.com/knowledge_base/archives_12/philosophy_questions_1206.html
Wish I could find more math based articles in them, but my google fu seems to be weak.
@Roivas
No, Roivas, gravity is a LAW. There is a difference between a theory and a law. This is elementary science. Look it up. I cannot take you very seriously in a scientific discussion if you think scientific laws and scientific theories are equivalent.
And of course you aren’t going to find any more “math based” articles. You are citing philosophy articles as if they are quantum mechanics. The little amount of equations they present are not new and have actually been known for a long time. These are philosophers using “old” mathematical equations as a foundation to argue their philosophical point. That’s all. Also, the two articles that actually have citations, cite “The Left Hand of Creation” as a main source. I actually think this book is the starting point for both arguments. It would be worth looking up.
Do you even know what physicists and physical chemists concerned with quantum mechanics are researching today? I think not, or you wouldn’t be pushing philosophy articles with a couple relativity equations in them as new quantum mechanics.
“No, Roivas, gravity is a LAW. There is a difference between a theory and a law. ”
You’re right. Sorry. Was knee jerk responding to the line because of how its often used, “Oh, evolution is just a theory, therefore it isn’t true.” If you didn’t mean it in that light, I apologize sincerely.
I accept your apology.
Roivas, I am a scientist, and therefore I treat scientific theories as just that, theories, and I treat scientific laws as just that, laws.
I am willing to venture a guess that you had that “knee jerk” response because you equate Believer with stupid. Well, I am not stupid. I am not required to believe a theory is true. And by the way, I have said nothing about my belief (or lack thereof) in the Big Bang Theory.
You, on the other hand, have claimed quantum mechanics “allows for the creation of entire new, random, uncaused particles.” To allow is not the same as to PROVE. Quantum mechanics is a mathematical METHOD used to simulate behavior at an atomic level. Do you know the traditional simulation goes only as far as hydrogen atom which only has a single electron? To deal with an atom with more than one electron, the mathematical method gets increasingly more complicated. Last I heard, there were mathematical simulations up to 3 electrons- that’s it. There is so little that we know, we have barely scratched the surface.
I pointed out that the “Big Bang” was theorized by a priest-a believer in God. You make no comment. Why is that?
I believe that whatever science PROVES to be true is just that, truth. God is truth, so where science leads, there is God. You want proof so as to be rid of God.
This may be why I am less “attached” to one theory or the other… I know the truth will lead to God. When you are an atheist, you need to be attached to a theory (or a reason or a science or a philosophy) as your god. My response is more measured when it comes to scientific research. Ideology makes for “bad science”.