Is better hedonism (thinging) or ascetism (thinking)?

How can I recognize God´s call? I do not think that it is predetermined what one should be – whether a priest, a husband or anything else. It is up to us what we are, what we choose to be. God only wants from us to be free in our choice to be good. If he wanted to, he would guide is through everything, but he gave us freedom to trust in him. That is all he want. I only have to believe from my own free will that he will guide me, and he will. Once I make the choide, I should stand by it. If I split up with my girlfriend I should stand by my choice, not because I say egoistically that I can live without her, but because choice is the only think we have in this life. Of course, choices may change. I should not say to myself, that I do not want her and that I will stay by my decision my love to her notwithstanding. When I see that I still love her, I should be opened to reevaluation of my choice. Choice is never absolute, because future is unforseenable, but I should always stand by my present-time choice, which should always aim to please God. Future should be left up to him. It is basically about not doing what is pleasureable for body. For example masturbation may be pleasurable but definitely is not good, although many people would say, and even empirical research may suggest, that it is good to masturbate (for example to get rid of stress or agression). From a long-term perspective this is a detrimental view. God is not empirically proven. Murder can be empirically seen to be evil, because it hurts others, but some things are evil although they do not hurt anybody. For example, I persisted voluntary in seeing a nice woman with a lustful images in my head. I knew its evil and yet I did it. Once one does not refrain from such thoughts he sins. The thought itself is natural but indulging in it becomes sinful.Other think was that I watched myself in the mirror thinking how good and muscular I look and what I should wear so that others see it. Sin again, it is so stupid and ridiculous behaviour. Is better hedonism (thinging) or ascetism (thinking)? We have so little time and it is definitely better to use the little time we have not for a bodily pleasure but for Jesus´s cross. It may seem paradoxical but it is better to choose difficulty of spiritual life, than easiness and pleasure of a secular world. Once I know about something that it is wrong, I cannot linger on doing it. Conscious evil is the only evil we can do. What angers you is usually good, because once something makes you angry, you are confronted with your weakness instead of becoming a better person via not becoming angry but rather coping with my anger. When I talk about God and a spiritual way of life, people tell me that there is not God. But what if there is, what if what I say is really true, because, once you look into your conscience you know it is. It is not from my head, this is a universal Jesus´s school of love. If there is not God, it is still reasonable to do good, because good is the only think that makes us happy. Love and then do anything you want as St. Augustine said. What if what you do is wrong-just try to acknowledge it potentially and hypothetically-would you be willing to refrain from doing it? If not, then you did not acknowledge it and still live in your egoistical viewing of world. This is very often the case, unwillingness to at least acknowledge that what I hold as good (for example sex prior to marriage, masturbation etc) may not be good at all.


Human potential to be good

Is it really necessary to compromise with evil? it is very clear that people are lazy, prone to do pleasurable egotistical things. Yes we know that. This is very clearly seen throughout history. Nevertheless there are exceptions. these exceptions are to be looked up to. I had a discussion with my father who told me that people are basically higher animals and that there is no reason to change them but rather constraint them so that we can leave in the society in a partial peace . I don’t think that this is the best way. Of course people are likely to do easy and usually bad things but we are all God’s creation and have a potential to overcome our egoism . In other words if I accept that people are evil and that we need repressive authorities in order to secure safety then I don’t believe in goodness. In my view the most important thing is to understand that people are egotistical but has a potential to overcome it and be good. It is necessary to believe in goodness not in an inevitable egoism of people. I do not contradict good people usually want to do bad things because the good are usually more difficult and demanding but the essential difference is in seeing humans potential to overcome its evil tendencies . One can either believe in goodness or don’t believe and then we need more prisons and repressive apparatuses. Is it better to be skeptical of believe in goodness? The answer is up to you


Inner voice

Is necessary to believe in sacraments or is an open heart enough? Is it really necessary to be of Catholic faith? Not every Catholic is good, but I think that everyone who is good is inevitably a Catholic – following Christs teaching. If you fulfill all religious prescripts but do not have faith, you are nothing. if you have faith, love, God-like consciense-daimonion, voice of the heart and fulfill no prescript, then you are with God. Until one does not know that something is good and something is bad (sometimes sin is doing something, but sometimes not doing, or doing nothing) then one is not quilty of such a thing. Once one knows teaching of Jesus Christ and does not accept it, then he sins because logically, it is not possible to go against teaching of Jesus – it is the highest principle even for nonbelievers. These prescripts are not outer but inner- they come from our selves, from our essence, they are not given by anybody, not even by Jesus, he came to be sacrificed for us, but he did not tell us anything new-all he said is something we would know if we had opened hearts. Through words and sincerity we arrive at the consensus that doing good is the highest human principle. Its all about choice, I cannot persuade you that something is wrong, I am not God, I do not know it for sure, maybe you can kill with a good intention, I do not know. I cannot say about concrete people or concrete situations that are either good or bad, but I can say for sure abstractly that something is wrong, evil and something right,good. What I say you either take as right and maybe not and maybe you are right in not believeing what I say-that killing someone or sex for pleasure is sin. But if one looks into one´s heart then one sees what is right and what is wrong. Sex for pleasure is very evilish thing to do, although people my disagree with it. I cannot say about concrete people or situation that something is wrong-only the protagonist can say so. It all goes back to an individual conscience. Some things on the other hand are definitely wrong. For example to kill somebody – because by killing somebody I hurt people. What is worse is that I hurt myself and damn myself. The killed one does not sin, but sin is worse than death. To die is not as bad as to die badly – in sin. What if someone sins and does not know it? Euthanasia for example may be considered a murder but may not. Hurting myself, although not doing anything evil to others is the worst thing one can do. Once I know that I hurt myself I must refrain from doing it. Other things may be more ambigous. For example masturbation – can there be a good masturbation? I do not think so, because masturbation is predominantly for my ego, my pleasure. Physical pleasure belongs only to marriage and love making with and for God´s glory. To know that something is wrong, I do not need any experience. For example lynching of people (blacks in the US history of the slave system) is wrong obviously, but what about people that do not know it? Is it possible to not know it? Hurting other always carries with it the knowledge, otherwise one would not hurt other if it did not somehow make it an egoistical pleasurable feeling. Thus one does not need any exprience to know that it is wrong. Such a damage can be very often seen in marriage that use contraception. It hurts me much, that people do not want at least to think about such things and its consequences. Maybe I am wrong,maybe contraception helps in a relationship, I do not want to be dogmatic, on the other hand – I want to be opened to everything, but have not seen up to now that contraception or anything like that could lead to a happy relationship. Golden rule says : do unto other what you want them to do to you. Does a woman want to be used anytime man want her, or should she rather follow her natural biorytmus? This is the question everyone should be willing to answer with a clear conscience.


Goodness in a relationship

I would like to philosophy a little bit about relationships generally and about what is good in intimate life before and after marriage. My view is basically a Christian one. First promiscuity: when a girl is young and lives sexually with all her partners, it hurts her although she knows it. Every sexual partner bears with him possible genes or viruses of his former sexual partners. On the other hand, one should not reproach his partner for having many sexual partners before him if the girl is conversant with the fact that it is/was wrong and that she does not want to do it again. Her conscience should tell her so. Dont be afraid to talk about the past,but dont force her to talk about it.truth uncovers itself. She should have confidence in you that she can tell everything and will not be judged or repudiated by you. Even if you learned that she did horrible things, had dozens of sexual partners, her past is not her present. Her past is deleted once she/he accepts Christ into one´s heart, soul and life. Past is a mirror of our life but nevertheless everyone has a choice to do good and turn into a good person, even if this would happen seconds before one´s death. Past should not influence the present, although it may be hard for the more religious to accept it – if for example the other partner was living a pure life, nevertheless, never judge your partner for her past, never judge anybody. Present is what matters, future and past cannot be changed. This belongs to God only. Choice is what matters. Not to have someone who is better than my actual partner, but to make the choice to love her, because even the fact that we came together is God´s plan. Until we love each other, let us not think about outer factors, hobbies etc, because there things are not essential to relationship, love is. To make a choice to love her, her weakness and past and our differences notwithstanding. Let us not seek reason why not be with each other, let us enjoy the greatest reason to be with each other. Choice to love is eternal, everything else decays and is prone to change and mutability. Choice is what depends on use. Appearance changes, hobbies change, but choice depends on us always.

Another thing is what to stay pure until marriage. When I talk about this with some friends who live sexually with their girls, they usually have fun of my talk or denouce it. Usually we arrive at consensus, that what I do is basically more difficult than what they do and that they (even unconsciously or unwillingly) have a reason to look up to me. This I say not because I want to feel egoistically or better than them (although this feeling always lurks somewhere hidden, but until one does not give up to the thought-any sinful thought when it comes, if one does not indulge in it but throws it away, it is not a sin. Evil thoughts come all the time, the crucial thing is what one does with them – do I indulge in my evil phantasies or do I renounce them- this is the question) but because I want to shem them a better way of life. What is pleasurable – sex prior to marriage may not ( and usually is not) the right thing to do. I have faith in life as the most sacred thing given to us but I also try to live life in faith. Faith in life, life in faith is what we should feel. To have faith in live means to give up our bodies to our Creator and to for our bodily pleasure. This does not mean that I should not kiss or caress my girl, but I should always bear in mind, that not we are married should the physical contant be or arousing character (fore play for sex). I would say that even caressing and kissing and even holding of hands is basically love-making, because every such contact should lead predominantly to marriage, if it does not, then such a relationship is predestined to be doomed because it only seeks egoistical pleasure. We should not be stressed if this touch or that on my partner´s body is sinful or good. This is not about a limit(for example kissing on cheek is good, kissing on neck not). Sin/goodness is not about limit but a dichotomy. Two poles. Black and white, Good and evil. On the other hand, let us not be afraid to push the limits, because unless I touch my girl on places formerly avoided, I cannot know that out love (physical nearness) grows. Growing of physical nearness it possible only in a relationship that aims to be consumated before God, not in a temporal (intentionally) relationship. This does not say that I should push the limits to play with fire – on the other hand, to know what is good will keep me save, because I always see if the touch I perform is good or not -that is the reason why one should not be afraid of touching partner´s body everywhere where he/she is not sure. Of course some places are forbidden even withou trying. It is not good to touch genitalies because this usually leads to arousing and further to sex – this should be after marriage. On the other hand, let us not be afraid to touch the partner everywhere to see for myself that it is not good. Once I see that me or her gets around, then I have a choice either to stop (go against my/her pleasure and not sin) or to sin and continue in arousing her/my lust. When I touch her and see the it makes me or her aroused and stop, then this is not a sin (unless this was performed in order to become aroused, if it was performed in order to learn if it makes me aroused, then it is not a sin). These are challenges to fight with sin and with ourselves – the evil within ourselves, withi our selves. Do not shun challenges but be ready to fight them, sinful thoughts come all the time. Thought are not sinfull in their essence, sin is what we do with them (either indulge in them or fight them). Do not be afraid to touch anywhere because it will also show you when is the right time to get married and consumate your marriage.

Similarly with sexual practices. Different practises than vaginal intercourse may not be sinful in their essence, but unfortunately very often lead to egoistical pleasure as opposed to doing good for God (and consequently for my partner, myself). Again, these practices are a challenges, once I see them as pleasurable for my ego, I should stop doing them but once I feel that our love grows through doing them, then I may be sure that it is for God´s glory. Different than vaginal intercourse should not be a way out of boredom in a relationship. When one starts to think in this way it is a way to hell, to perversion. One´s body is a sanctuary. To touch your girl everywhere is to love her or to destroy her. If one does it with evil thoughts (egoistical pleasure) then it is the greates sacrilage. When one does it in order to make her happy, show affection and love, then it is for God´s glory as well. When thinking about my partner only as a tool to satisfy my needs, then I will never be satisfied and eventually will start hating her/him. Similarly with contraception. I convinced by friend not to take contraception. One of my greates achievements as a Christian, though I am boasting. To use contraception is to use my partner´s body as a form of satisfaction, nothing else. Once I am able and willing(!!) to wait until we can make love, then it is a proof of my love (of course this must not be a calculation. I must not masturbate or indulge in any other form of autoeroticism. One should also be a support for each other. If one of the partners is around then the other should not let her/him continue. This would be rape anyway. Imagine that your girl is so horny and cannot (really?) controle herself and starts to undress you. Imagine holding her hands to not do that. This is basically a converse rape, you hold her tightly, she cannot move, but she was the one who started with undressing. I would say that girl has then so much confidence in you, because usually man is the one who is prone to allow take his body the control over his sexuality. On the other hand, man should not be a patriarch that has a subdued woman. It should be an equal relationshop. Nevertheless, woman usually need a dominant male. This dominance should nevertheless stem from my egoism but from my love and affection for my wife.



Words and morality

When i exhort,i dont want to sound better than others because maybe they are right and not me. words, as opposed to empirical knowledge are absolute, do not require empirical experiences. we need to understand that only through words can we achieve absolute consensus to the essence of things which is not based on any empirical evidence. empirical evidence does not hint on spiritual things but on things material. Thus it can be said that premarital sex,eg sex for pleasure is bad,but it cannot be applied on concrete people-it cannot be sais that he or she is an adulterer – this depends on individual consicence to accept or not accept universal truth and goods which is presented via words. Words are absolute because they dont touch concrete world,but use concrete words in order to describe transcedent, abstract, moral things, how to be good. When we talk,unless we reach consensus,we need another words to describe words i use. To be honest, i need more words and arguments until one understands it and agrees with me. to be good in any situation. from this premise come all other postulates. The words that are used for descriptive means of world are relative and not absolute. If one uses words not to describe things in the world but to prescribe how things should be then people reach absolute consensus. Brushes of strokes can either copy reality, or can be used as a tool to express someone´s artistic need to express the truth. Words, though relative (or because of that) can be used only as a means to arrive at a mutual absolute consensus, as well as a painting which may be unique but is nevertheless potentially copiable – the truth is not a possesion of someone, but it is an entity that just IS. Same with words, via words one either accepts the truth, or does not. Words as well as painting may be only a copy of reality (not truthful but empirical – to see that something is empirically something we do not need words but must exprience it) or may be used in order to arrive at truth – use the concepts in order to arrive at mutual consensus – here I do not need to expericence entities to which concepts direct – I can understand those concepts via other words. What is only empirically understandable cannot be explained via words but must be experienced. The only proof of an absolute consensus is mutual understanding which is actually necessary to come to a conclusion if something is bad and something good. Always remember to consider an individual action. Its about concrete occurences,one may be wrong about other pereon,its about my view of my actions and actions in general,but never fromcthe point of view of an another person. Truth cannot be found,it is being found. Neverending proces. Nevertheless,words when used as tools for making situations can be understood absokutely-and the hearer either admits the truth or not,for example in oremarital amrriage – it is not possible to say in concerete people that they are either wrong or good, but generally when I talk to someone about this toppic, we arrive at the conclusion that If someone does sleep with his/hers partner before marriage it is because of the “inablity” (not wanting to!!) curb my physiological needs. Tastes should be controled, tastes and needs of my body should not control my mind and sel. Not everything that is allowed (and easy as in case of premarital sex) is allowed. My carrer as a social care worker showed me that everybody has certain sexual drives – some people I work with are not able to eat, drink, use toilet, but all of them have certain sexual drives, thus I conclude that procreatin is possibly the easiest thing in the world and thus one should be very careful about seeing premarital sex as something that should be adored, because it is the easiest thing and things that are easy are not usually good.