Humility: Good or Bad?

[ResRev]

Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?

I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.

[Probius]

Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?

I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.

Thanks, I can clear this up.  There is a difference between morality and the law.  Morality deals with how a man should best live a life, law deals with protecting the rights of men.  I may judge an action to be bad, but if it doesn't violate the rights of others, it should not be illegal.  The non-aggression principle is at work here.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  (N.B. Self defense is not an initiation of force). If a man is doing something that hurts himself, there is nothing wrong with stating the evil of his action, but no one has the right to use force to stop him.  If I see a man destroying his life with a heroine addiction, I do not have the right to use force to get him into a rehab clinic, the ends never justify the means.  I can help him if he asks, but he must ask.  Now, I will judge his actions, but I will not judge him.  Drugs should be treated as a health problem, and not moralized.  I also will not tell this man he is a piece of dirt, or that he should just die.  I will tell him that his actions are killing him, and that help is available when he decides to get better.  Do you understand?

Edit: Insults do not deal with rights.  No one has the right to not be insulted, but that doesn't mean insulting others is good.  When I insult someone else, I only hurt myself, and I hurt the chances of fruitful debate, which detracts from the truth.

[ResRev]

Would Jesus approve of hurling insults at others, or would he rather a Christian say that someone is wrong and do so in a polite manner?  Do you convince someone of truth by calling that person disgusting names?  Or do you just push them farther from The Church?

I understand where you're coming from. I haven't quite gotten the whole charitable/uncharitable thing figured out yet, but I do agree with you in principle. But I'm so confused about how you come to the decision to chastise anyone about this (I'm not being passive-agressive here, I'm truly, honestly confused). Your stated position earlier was that you should not judge others' behaviors (what we call sins) unless your own rights were being infringed upon. Other than that, hands off. Are your rights more expanded than what you listed? Is one of them not to be insulted? Do you consider it harassment of some sort and that violates your rights? It seems like you think the behavior is not healthy or good and that's what you object to. We're not supposed to remark on behaviors that we believe aren't healthy, why should you? Totally honest question, here, I like you, you seem like a good guy.

Thanks, I can clear this up.  There is a difference between morality and the law.  Morality deals with how a man should best live a life, law deals with protecting the rights of men.  I may judge an action to be bad, but if it doesn't violate the rights of others, it should not be illegal.  The non-aggression principle is at work here.  The non-aggression principle states that no man may initiate force against another man.  (N.B. Self defense is not an initiation of force). If a man is doing something that hurts himself, there is nothing wrong with stating the evil of his action, but no one has the right to use force to stop him.  If I see a man destroying his life with a heroine addiction, I do not have the right to use force to get him into a rehab clinic, the ends never justify the means.  I can help him if he asks, but he must ask.  Now, I will judge his actions, but I will not judge him.  Drugs should be treated as a health problem, and not moralized.  I also will not tell this man he is a piece of dirt, or that he should just die.  I will tell him that his actions are killing him, and that help is available when he decides to get better.  Do you understand?

Yes. Thank you for the explanation. I see where the confusion is. I thought I've seen comments from you that take the Church and her members to task for judging some behaviors as sinful (unhealthy, unhelpful, etc) You didn't seem to include legislating them in your assessment. I see that I was mistaken and you would only have a problem with the Church trying to force people to not engage in sinful behavior but not judging said behavior? I'll try to find some quotes from you and post them here to give a fuller picture of what I saw as a double-standard.

[ResRev]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

[Jayne]

I try to understand charity and what is just secular "nice" but not charity (in speech) and get very confused. What is charitable? (I feel like Pilate...anyway...) I read our Lord say,

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.

If I said someone was "full of...filthiness" I would most likely be said to be uncharitable. I don't get it. Just thinking out loud here.

This is how I understand the difference.  "Nice" is about avoiding confrontation and getting along.  Charity is about speaking the truth in love, even when the loving truth makes people uncomfortable.  Our Lord was telling people something important that they needed to know about their spiritual state.  He was not insulting them because he was annoyed and wanted to vent.

[Probius]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

[ResRev]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

No. It really doesn't. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree. To me you sound like someone skirting around the issue of being hypocritical so that it sounds moral to you. Eh, you have your sins, I have mine...we both should maybe work on that. Peace.

[ResRev]

I try to understand charity and what is just secular "nice" but not charity (in speech) and get very confused. What is charitable? (I feel like Pilate...anyway...) I read our Lord say,

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.

If I said someone was "full of...filthiness" I would most likely be said to be uncharitable. I don't get it. Just thinking out loud here.

This is how I understand the difference.  "Nice" is about avoiding confrontation and getting along.  Charity is about speaking the truth in love, even when the loving truth makes people uncomfortable.  Our Lord was telling people something important that they needed to know about their spiritual state.  He was not insulting them because he was annoyed and wanted to vent.

I agree, Jayne. Thanks. I just have to keep working on that in practice and not theory. I'm not very good at it yet.

[Probius]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

No. It really doesn't. Sorry, we have to agree to disagree. To me you sound like someone skirting around the issue of being hypocritical so that it sounds moral to you. Eh, you have your sins, I have mine...we both should maybe work on that. Peace.

I am not asking you to agree with me, I was just asking you if the difference between morals and the law made sense.

[ResRev]

I am not asking you to agree with me, I was just asking you if the difference between morals and the law made sense.

Yes. I passed the fifth grade. You crack me up.

I like you.

[Probius]

Haha, good.  You're alright too.  I have the hardest time getting people to see the difference, and when they do I see their faces light up.  A man's whole worldview changes once he recognizes this.  No longer may a man force his values on others.

[m.PR]

No longer may a man force his values on others.

Isn't one's idea of what rights are a "value"?

Heretics were persecuted because they were seen as a threat to people's right (to use a modern concept) to Truth and Salvation. Further, in a world where religion was a great unifying factor (as it is, in general), heretics were a threat to the stability of the community and therefore a threat to the common good.

Yet today people do not think that Truth and Salvation are rights so people are dismayed by the idea of jailing people for spreading heresy. On the other hand, the people of another time would have been dismayed by the things done in the name of what the people of today consider rights, such as exposing children to quasi-pornographic material in the name of freedom of expression.

Your notion of human rights is based on your values. Which you then seek to impose upon other people.

Another illustration. You probably hold the right to private property to be absolute. So then according to you, someone who takes an apple from his neighbor's apple tree without his permission is stealing and could be prosecuted. Yet, according to another understanding of the world, if the man who took the apple was poor and hungry while the neighbor that got his apple taken had an excess of wealth - didn't really need that one apple - then then man who took the apple wasn't really stealing. Therefore, if you prosecute this man, you're actually imposing your values - your opinion on what is stealing and what is not.

[Non Nobis]

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

You think pride is important. Isn't pride only in the mind?  Is it perfectly OK (morally) to voluntarily debase oneself (mentally); or for others (morally and legally) to humiliate you to any degree?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

you have zero right to criticize the Holy Mystical Body of Christ. And by your own admission you have zero authority to do so. And your obviously confusing lust with temptation. Lust is an act of the will done with the imaginatuon...you do not do it automatically with wishing to do so...unless youve become so used to it you forget you can controll it. The only reason you dare criticize Christ is you WANT to sin unencumbered..you want to debauch and run wild anytime you wish..youll have no one dare stop you. You do not hold the high ground..you hold the pit.

[Gardener]

CF, found the one statement I had in mind

The Church imposes rules on men.  These rules deal with nearly everything including a man's thoughts.  I say to you that any man who looks upon a woman with lust, has already commit adultery in his heart.

You seemed to disapprove when the Church has rules for men, but not when you do. Or did you think that the Church looks to legislate "a man who looks at a woman with lust"? I don't think that's ever been a Church objective, unless someone can set me straight.

I don't think The Church ever made laws with regard to lust, they would be almost impossible to enforce anyway.  So, I recognize this had nothing to do with law, and is about morality.  Here I am disagreeing with The Church on a moral issue.  I think she is wrong in her view here, as I do not believe something which is only in the mind can be considered immoral.  I am giving you my opinion here.  If The Church wants to call certain thoughts immoral, legally she has every right to do so.  I do not have the right to use force to stop her, but I do have the right to criticize her for doing so.  I criticize her action, but not her.  Does this make sense?

But you are not criticizing the Church on this, rather you are telling Christ He is wrong. The Church only teaches on issues of faith and morals that which God has revealed, and when there is a need for clarification She exercises the magisterial powers via the protection of the Holy Ghost.

But this issue is in Sacred Scripture, as recorded by the Apostle Matthew via the very words of Christ, the Word made Flesh.

Lust debases a man, and objectifies the object of his lust, another human being, and so it is not a victimless crime. It also shouldn't be confused with mere sexual desire, which is natural. Nor attraction, which is natural, but rather the disordered use of that which is natural. Thus, it is a privation of form or due measure, and so is evil (De Malo 2:2:, St. Thomas Aquinas).

We can also understand this from the Hebrew wherein the word for wicked is Ra, or resh-ayin are the letters... it means, in the Hebrew to break: no longer serve its intended purpose; dysfunctional. Thus, the bowl breaks and it is "wicked", evil. No longer able to abide by its intended form and cannot serve its due measure of holding something. The bowl-soul, being wicked, cannot hold grace.

Thus, lust is immoral.