Fasting is not about displeasure because pleasure, which is being with God, is more pleasurable then bodily pleasure. When I fast I feel really good. Although first day I am hungry I know that fasting for Spiritual reasons is very good for me. Hunger is overcome and peace comes to my mind. I know that Jesus is with me . I know that via fasting I’m getting closer to God. Through doing something I do not like but know that is good I feel God’s presence much more intensely. In the end it is all about individual conscience. It’s not about doing something that hurts me and about thinking now God Must Love Me. it is just the opposite. Loving my pain and knowing that the pain is worth going through. God does not want us to hurt our bodies , on the other hand he wants us to purify our souls and bodies as well . fasting or sexual abstinence can be seen as painful but Is merely displeasurable, does not hurt our bodies. On the other hand- such displeasure purifies our bodies and our souls.
Painting is absolute in its essence,words are relative and thus an absolute understanding comes only when consensus comes. Words are not descriptive but prescriptive. only through understanding what is good via a consensus do we use was perfectly, absolutely like for example painting. The proof that I understand relative words which are descriptive absolutely is consensus about good and evil way of living. Even though words are relative and descriptive and everyone has a unique concept of anything one may encounter, the mutual consensus if arrived at sincerely is uniqueness of words because what is relative basically turns into non relativity but perfection. Words are universal and absolutely translatable – understood for everyone. There is not an empirical need to understand what is behind words – words that are absolute (showing good/bad way) can be understood via a universal conscience – God´s essence in us. Painting is via words not explicable – only empirically can I understand it – as opposed to words, which are universal and do not need any empirical knowledge. In real life situations, with concrete people I can never judge what is good and what not. I cannot talk about a concrete prostitute and claim that she sins, I can only say that anything against God is bad and what she does with it is her choice. I cannot be sure that she sins, although everything suggests that she does. Only in words I can be sure what is good and what is bad. Prostitution hurts people is absolutely right but I cannot hold it as truthful for concrete people. What damages people is not empirically proven, only via words. Masturbation can be seen as benefitial, for most psychologist even empirically proved, but definitely wrong thing to do – not based on any experience or empirical analysis. I cannot say I feel better now I do not masturbate, those 4 years, but I am sure it is the right thing to do. We can say that empirically for most people money are essential, but can also hurt people. Empirically we can say that socialism is more fair than capitalism but cannot know for sure that it is better for people. This depends on individual conscience, choice. People must choose good under any political system, be it capitalism, socialism or any other. Empirically we can say that under some political system, for example capitalism, people tend to act according to the law of jungle, because capitalism enforces to use strength and devour weaker. Socialism on the other hand does not want to make differences between people. It is not possible though to say which one is better empirically. Words are not here for descriptive purpose – for this we need empirical knowledge – for example seeing a picture cannot be explained via words, only to a certain amount of understanding, not absolutely – for absolute understanding one has to see the picture. Such communication is not absolute as well, because words I use aim at concrete things – when I talk about someones, or someones picture I use words-concepts which are known to the other party – if I used those words with someone not conversant with a certain picture or a person, I would not be able to describe absolutely the person or picture or anything concrete/unique anyway (the person see words concrete entities, not via words explicable concepts). Via words one can explain absolutely only such things which do not need any a priori knowledge – empirical. Words are here for prescriptive purpose – to show what is right from wrong. All that I write here is also adequate for absolute understanding. This text is not absolute in the way of showing a good way of life, but on the other hand, to understand it, one does not need any concrete knowledge. This applies to any text, not any concrete text. It is not descriptive but prescriptive, how to use words to be absolutely understandable, it is not about a certain amount of knowledge. When reading about any research for example, it is always better to be present when researching, because in words the results of any research are only partial, the empirical knowledge is always more precise – absolute. On the other hand, words are absolute only when they do not direct themselves to conrete (empirical) things.
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
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.
I was in a discussion about whether handicapped people should be motivated to attain higher education or whether they should be left in the care of other people. My mother told me about a guy who reached secondary school and finished it but the school was very easy and the degree he got made him unable to ask for social care benefits. His parents tried very hard for him to complete the school but now are despondent because he still depends on them and he cannot claim any benefits because he got the degree. Now they think that they would have done better if they hadn’t taught him and rather let him get social care benefits. I do not think that this approach works. On one hand he still depends on his parents and they won’t be able to look after him for very long . it may happen that because of his degree he will end on the street because he cannot claim benefits. but is making life easier the best thing? I think that using his potential instead of just letting it be and go in vain is much better option . I think that life which is fulfilled and difficult is much more rewarding than life which is lived in pleasure and vain. It is also immoral, in my view, to claim money if one is capable and able to earn them.