Are you a moral relativist?

[Blue_Horizon]

Certainly, definitions change, but what we are trying to establish that people who follow the Bible with any degree of sincerity must concede that the morality of people is relative to the times that you live in. Otherwise, you cannot explain the reasoning behind the Bible’s acquiescence to slavery in the Old Testament and even in the New to some extent. In today’s world, it is clearly defined that slavery is a blatant degradation of the human person, but for thousands of years (over a thousand of which Christianity was the main religion of the west) slavery was allowed and was even a common practice even among those who profess to follow Christ’s teachings of love and acceptance.

Who is the “we”, I was addressing VL who is an atheist while you are a Catholic?

When you say definitions change I think you may be on the wrong tack - I was referring to definitions of “moral relativism” not really slavery. I am not into labelling complex views with two words…so while I have no issue with saying that the OT law clearly had little problem with “soft” slavery I do not yet see that as necessarily intrinsically incompatible with, say, Scholastic objectivism on the matter.

“It is clearly defined that slavery is a blatant degradation of the human person,”

I think we need to be a bit careful here. It depends how you define “slavery.” I think the forms of “slavery” described by the NT was severely attenuated form and probably a rather attractive life option for many persons back then in a society that was not “upwardly mobile” from the circumstances one was born into.

Can you perhaps provide a Magisterial source for your statement above?

While many nominal Christians clearly practised slavery, and even the worst forms in Southern USA (more a Protestant thing than a Catholic one?) I am not sure why that is relevant to this discussion. Human beings religious or not often do not live up to their ideals or tjhose of the institutions they nominally belong to.

This is kind of sad. Basically, if you decide that God has told you to commit genocide against an entire nation, you would carry his command out? I think this is one of the main problems with the Bible. It gives people the idea that if God commands it, it must be done. This can be hugely problematic in many cases, and can be used as an excuse to commit horrible atrocities (which has happened before, take the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Muslim invasion of the Byzantine empire, and most recently the escapades of ISIS). If you do not recognize that you have no moral obligation to obey a command telling you to sin, I really don’t know what to say.

You are responding here to something that I didn’t write and I am not sure who posted that.

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

You are responding here to something that I didn’t write and I am not sure who posted that.

He was quoting me. He seemed to agree with the unquoted portion of my post.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

‘Was’ revealed? That’s past tense. Yet we will continue to learn. So His law is still being revealed. You don’t see a contradiction there? Or maybe there are some other aspects of morality that haven’t been revealed yet.

But anyway, it was OK then, because God hadn’t told us it was wrong, but now it’s immoral. Isn’t that what any normal person would describe as relativism?

And where are the new instructions you received telling you that it’s now immoral? Aren’t you just reinterpreting existing scripture to fit wih modern views on morality? Which again is almost a dictionary definition of relativism.

Your ascribing your own understanding to phrases used by Catholics which have a specific meaning to a Catholic, and you are showing you don’t understand the Catholic understanding of those phrases/terminology. I would say the same to some others here.

I know what you are getting at, but the Catholics and atheists here are just talking past each other.

 

[Faithdancer]

No Catholic can be a moral relativist. I don’t understand the point of this thread.

 

[Faithdancer]

I have several answers of which I know you won’t like nor accept because you have made up your mind.

I will say this, if you have issue with it, take it up with God. I tend to follow St. Peter and in the same manner he replied to Jesus, to whom would we go, I reply, if not to God, where would I go. Meaning, I trust in God, I believe in God, I adore God, I love God and that is enough for me. I may not understand everything, but I am okay with that. God does…

Amen. The OP isn’t really asking a question–i.e the thread title. If it were titled, “Why I think Catholics are wrong about absolute morality,” at least that would be honest.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

‘Was’ revealed? That’s past tense. Yet we will continue to learn. So His law is still being revealed. You don’t see a contradiction there? Or maybe there are some other aspects of morality that haven’t been revealed yet.

But anyway, it was OK then, because God hadn’t told us it was wrong, but now it’s immoral. Isn’t that what any normal person would describe as relativism?

And where are the new instructions you received telling you that it’s now immoral? Aren’t you just reinterpreting existing scripture to fit wih modern views on morality? Which again is almost a dictionary definition of relativism.

The role of affection, love, desire for unity or whatever one may call it should not be underplayed in the deepening of self knowledge of oneself and of a society.

I think of my wife as a prime example. When I look back at the beginning of our relationship I clearly see what a selfish a*&hole I was a lot of the time. I also see that I gradually changed because I came to realise from her tears that that I had habits that weren’t conducive to a married relationship (let alone any relationship really).

So here is a strange thing. There is nothing about myself I know now that I didn’t know then…except how those same old habits affect significant persons in my life. Maybe I even knew that back then. But the reality that I do not want to lose this particular person forced me to change my ways and live in a way conducive for my wife’s flourishing and my own. Not a new revelation exactly but a fleshing out of implicit knowledge I already possessed as Socrates might say. Anamnesis.

I see the “evolving” morality of the Hebrew and Christian peoples similarly before their God. It’s not pure relativism, there is an underlying perceived better way of acting that promotes true flourishing for both parties instead of just one party. Morality is ultimately about becoming more catholic in one’s understanding of “self” …spiritually including more and more persons into the circle of care we naturally give to our own self.

Such is the Church’s growth of understanding of slavery, and many other things, it seems to me. Even when it was tolerated by law due to hardness of most hearts the best amongst us new it was not right.