Humility: Good or Bad?

[Probius]

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.

This is why morality must be based on reality, not whim.  Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.  As Miss Rand liked to say, "wishing won't make it so!"  I own that which I produce, and you cannot take it from me.  As for real estate, as opposed to private property, I own that land which I bought from a previous owner or that land with which I have mingled my labor.  (see John Locke for more)  A man who steals an apple would get a minor fine at most, as it is a minor crime.

[ResRev]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

[Probius]

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?

It is legal for a man to voluntarily debase himself, it is his life, but it is an awful thing to do.  And for others to humiliate you depends on what you mean by humiliate.  They may legally say nasty things, but they may not physically hurt you or your property.  To speak ill of others is to act immorally, but no illegally.  They also may not slander or libel your character, if these things be lies.  So, they couldn't lie and write a column which states that you stole money when you didn't.  That sort of humiliation is illegal and immoral.

To act immorally is to act in a way which I think is bad, but which violates no rights and therefore cannot be stopped with force.  To act illegally is to act in a way which violates another's rights and can be stopped using force.  Force is a terrible evil and must only be used in defense of one's self or loved ones.  The non-aggression principle is at the heart of all of this.  A man may not initiate force against another.  If you use the law to stop someone from acting immorally, then you have initiated force upon one who has used no force himself.

[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?

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.

The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.

I do recognize the difference between lust and temptation, and I was speaking of lust, not temptation.  But, it is an error to speak of going against one's nature.  To demand a man that he go against his nature is to deny the laws of causality and identity.

[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?

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.

Thoughts do not affect their object, so lust cannot affect the one lusted after.  Further, it is possible to lust after a person whom a man has never met, or one who doesn't exist.

I don't care what the bible says.

[Probius]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.  When my thinking about a thing is in accord with that thing, my thinking is true.

[ResRev]

The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.

If you don't believe in authority, how do you secure rights? On your own? Do you shoot trespassers or detain thieves on your own? Hold your own court? What if someone doesn't accept your authority?

I don't actually understand this one...

[Probius]

The right to criticize has nothing to do with authority, and I don't believe in authority anyway.

If you don't believe in authority, how do you secure rights? On your own? Do you shoot trespassers or detain thieves on your own? Hold your own court? What if someone doesn't accept your authority?

I don't actually understand this one...

It probably has to do with how we are defining the word 'authority'.  I think of an authority as one whom men must obey because of his position, he decides on his own what is right and what is wrong.  He doesn't merely uphold the law, but he is the law.  Whatever he says, goes.  The United States is supposed to be a country of laws and not men, so we are not supposed to have any authority.  I'm pretty sure the Catholic notion of authority is very different, but I never got understood it.  A priest once told me that the government has the right to make any law that it wants, so long as it did not violate God's law.  That sounds like authority to me, not complete but close.

[ResRev]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.

But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

[ResRev]

Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?

[Probius]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.

But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.

[Probius]

Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?

From school and my grandmother.  The education I received from my childhood, from both school and family, was basically straight from the enlightenment.

[ResRev]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.

But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.

But you started it!

See, you said "outside". That's a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. But I'll leave it at that because I feel like I'm getting ready to say nanynanypoopoo and you might yank my pigtails. So undignified. 

And I don't get offended. I'm part vulcan, apparently.

[ResRev]

Interesting definition of authority. Where did you get it?

From school and my grandmother.  The education I received from my childhood, from both school and family, was basically straight from the enlightenment.

I learned in a similar way from my dad, who was atheist. I've learned as I got older, though, that a better way to have a discussion is "straight from Merriam-Webster." Clears up lots of confusion.

[Probius]

Truth is objective and exists outside of you and what you think.

Excellent. If it exists outside of you, where would it exist, actually?

Truth is a concept and not a physical object, it does not exist in any physical location.

But, you were the one who said it exists "outside" of you. That demands a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. It still needs a "place". I didn't mean physical and neither did you. I think you should have been able to see that, it sounds disingenuous to say that you thought I meant a physical place. I'm starting to feel like you use that as a debating tactic. If you get a tough question, make the other debater and their argument sound just a little stupid and skirt the actual question. It's very similar to avoiding the question and making fun of their spelling or grammar. Do you find yourself doing that often? Anyway. Back to the topic.

If something "exists" it must have some "plane" (to use a very imperfect description that I cringe a little to use) of existence, physical or otherwise. In what "plane" would truth "exist"? What is your explanation of "where" "things" "exist" that are "outside" of us?

Your'e the one who used the term 'where', which clearly implies location.  I didn't mean to use any tactic.  I find your manner of speaking confusing, I don't mean to offend.  What do you mean by 'plane'?  This sounds platonic, am I right?

When I say that truth exists outside of you, I mean that truth is not what whatever man decides it is.  The universe around us exists objectively, and it is our job to conform our minds to it and not the other way around.

But you started it!

See, you said "outside". That's a "where". Doesn't mean it's physical. But I'll leave it at that because I feel like I'm getting ready to say nanynanypoopoo and you might yank my pigtails. So undignified. 

And I don't get offended. I'm part vulcan, apparently.

I believe I'm part Vulcan as well, I always did like Spoke best.  I can see how using the term "outside" would imply location.  I think of truth as a concept.  A thing is always true, as it just is what it is.  An idea is true only if it corresponds to reality, and that reality is outside of me.  This goes along with Miss Rand's axiom, existence exists.  Existence has primacy over consciousness, the universe exists regardless of what I think.  One place where Traditional Catholics and Objectivists can agree is that we both hate a lot of modern philosophy, including subjectivism.

You have a great sense of humor.    So, here is a joke.

Two Libertarians were walking down a public sidewalk and came upon a vending machine which dispensed heroin to anyone who wanted it.  After a vigorous debate between the two, they came to a firm conclusion.  There shouldn't be any public sidewalks.