J
joeybaggz
Guest
True, but that isn’t the fault of emotion, it is the fault of those seeking the truth.
- Status
E
egretps
Guest
I don’t want to paraphrase, but I can’t access it right now. In Hostage to the devil on Netflix he essentially said the church wasn’t meant to correct all the problems on the earth but to ready us for heaven. That to me doesn’t mean we as faithful shouldn’t do charity or works of mercy, but we shouldn’t get to focused here. I had never heard it expressed before and I’m almost fifty!
B
Bradskii
Guest
I don’t think that most would disagree with laws being objective. As you say, you can’t have people deciding to drive at different speeds on the same road. And some acts are objectively immoral. And we don’t need reference to the deity of your choice to reach that conclusion. If you can’t give reasons or think that it’s impossible to give reasons why torturing children for fun is bad without referencing God, then you have a serious problem. Other acts, from factory farming to torturing a terrorist to obtain the whereabouts of a bomb…well, your mileage may vary.Jump4Joy:
Subjective morality means just what you said it does. Something each person defines differently. As to right or wrong, morality can be equated to law. Let me ask you this; how comfortable would you be in everyday life, if we just took down all the speed limit signs, all the traffic direction devices, all the lines on the road, and just let everyone do what they thought was right? For the good of society and mankind, morality/law must be objective and not subjective.
However, laws and morality are not absolute. They cannot be discussed without referring to the situation at hand. So they are relative in the sense that they must be looked at in context. So: Is harming a child wrong?
Well, if you are giving her an injection, then no. And if you sticking needles into her for the fun of it, then yes.
B
Bradskii
Guest
No. It can be. But morality is never absolute. See above.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
Further explain what you mean that morals are not absolute
B
Bradskii
Guest
If you say that lying is wrong then that is an absolute statement. Which, by definition, cannot be qualified in any way or is not relative to anything. But to agree to the statement or not, you need to give some context. Are you lying to cheat someone of their life savings or lying to the guy with a gun and evil intent when you tell him your wife and children are not hiding in the basement?
If you give context then the statement is relative. It is wrong WHEN… or it is wrong IF…
The normal response to this is something along the lines of: But ‘murder is wrong’ is an absolute statement. Which it actually isn’t. You need to unpack what murder means. And it is shorthand for taking a life under certain conditions. It is killing relative to those conditions. Hence it is a relative statement.
Last edited:
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I understand
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I’d say, “That’s nice. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Joshua 24:15.” Then change the subject.
Last edited:
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Well presented, and much of what you have said, I find no disagreement. The only quibble I would have is with your statement that morality is not absolute. Of course, coming from a theistic POV, I believe that the moral laws such as thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, though shalt not bear false witness, must be as objective as traffic laws. Can’t have a law that is fraught with personal interpretation. And, like civil law, the application of the law and its affect on the “lawbreaker” is subjective. I’m not sure if we are simply talking past each other. The law must be objective, its application and effect can, and often must be subjective. That is what the RCC is all about. And some moral laws must be absolute. There can really be no mitigating circumstances to the commission of adultery that can make it subjective and ‘right’. That is where we might depart???joeybaggz:
I don’t think that most would disagree with laws being objective. As you say, you can’t have people deciding to drive at different speeds on the same road. And some acts are objectively immoral. And we don’t need reference to the deity of your choice to reach that conclusion. If you can’t give reasons or think that it’s impossible to give reasons why torturing children for fun is bad without referencing God, then you have a serious problem. Other acts, from factory farming to torturing a terrorist to obtain the whereabouts of a bomb…well, your mileage may vary.Jump4Joy:
Subjective morality means just what you said it does. Something each person defines differently. As to right or wrong, morality can be equated to law. Let me ask you this; how comfortable would you be in everyday life, if we just took down all the speed limit signs, all the traffic direction devices, all the lines on the road, and just let everyone do what they thought was right? For the good of society and mankind, morality/law must be objective and not subjective.
However, laws and morality are not absolute. They cannot be discussed without referring to the situation at hand. So they are relative in the sense that they must be looked at in context. So: Is harming a child wrong?
Well, if you are giving her an injection, then no. And if you sticking needles into her for the fun of it, then yes.
T
toddy
Guest
Sound like Eva and the Snake after eating the apple.
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
When I hear this, I am thinking they are a good person. They go to work, pay their bills, not getting into trouble with the law. That’s what a good person does. So they are a good person in their own minds.
My strategy would be to say that I lived my life before God and now that I’ve come to believe he’s my loving father, I don’t want to live another day without his love in my life. His amazing love for me! Who doesn’t want more love in their lives? Knowing him and following him is an out of this world adventure I don’t want to miss out on. And I don’t want YOU to miss out on it. Not another day!
Is that a strategy you can use? You might peak their interest to ask more questions, And pray for them to have God stir their heart, to come closer to him.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
However, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal” are indeed “fraught with personal interpretation.” Sometimes killing even of innocent people might be justified for some (self-defense, just war, etc.) in part because this kind of killing is not considered murder, but for others killing is NEVER justified even in self-defense or wartime (in Quakerism, for example). Likewise, “Thou shalt not steal” is interpreted by many in different ways. The moral dilemma of stealing food or medicine when one’s life depends on it, for example (Jean Valjean). How about stealing ideas from others (copyright laws, cheating on a test, etc.)? Or stealing from the rich to give to the poor (Robin Hood)? People come down on stealing in different ways dependent on their religious teaching as well as their personal viewpoint of the circumstances.
Last edited:
P
PennyinCanada
Guest
I wanted to add…
I want to say you’re awesome that you are opening up about your faith to people who do not have faith! I like that you are here basically talking strategy. Good for you!
When I hear that you don’t have to believe in God to be a good person, move on to a different strategy. It could be their idea is that alcoholics need to believe in a ‘higher power’ to stay sober so God is a crutch of some kind, which they don’t need. And they still aren’t sober. It’s like believing in the toothfairy.
If you simply say that you lived your life before without God and then made the decision to have God in your life, it’s awesome better. Not better like cream in my coffee makes coffee better. It’s awesome better. I love being his daughter. I love giving him a hug and kiss first thing in the morning and telling him about my day in the evening. We just have to settle ourselves and pray. Say Hello. He is right there ready to hear how we are doing. Even if there was nothing beyond this life, I would still chose to pray and have God as my Father in my todays.
May God give you wisdom and strength as you bring the Gospel into your day.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Done correctly, it should fill your life with your own love of God and love of neighbor.
It does not necessarily mean others will come rushing to love you. In fact it could mean the total opposite.
C
Cone
Guest
The problem with this way of thinking is that almost every non-believer thinks of himself as “a good person”, whether they are or not. Those who don’t recognize God probably don’t recognize their own sinfulness. They will define right and wrong in a self-serving way.
Last edited:
C
Chris.Topher
Guest
I wouldn’t even start with God, because I think the issue here begins at a lack of self-revelation. What do they mean by being a "good"person? Are they alleging perfection? If not, then should that not drive them for more? I’m presuming it should be easy enough to point out their imperfections. Likewise, what do they mean by not “needing” God? There are many things that, we could live without, but that doesn’t mean they should deny good things? A person can live in lies and deceit, but I would find it strange to argue that such a life would be better than living in truth.
D
Dorothy
Guest
Yes! I believe that is what the Lord does for us; He takes us from where we are coming…but of course He is offering the graces for them to learn the truth and guide them closer to it.
D
Dorothy
Guest
With our focus on the Lord in prayer and the sacraments, we learn to suffer the things we cannot change for love of Him.
When others insult us we need to pray for the wisdom of how to respond peacefully.
I know I need Christ to be able to do that. The Lord helps us along our journey to live for Him and grow in virtue if we cooperate with His grace.
Does practicing civility and politeness equal that?
When others insult us we need to pray for the wisdom of how to respond peacefully.
I know I need Christ to be able to do that. The Lord helps us along our journey to live for Him and grow in virtue if we cooperate with His grace.
Does practicing civility and politeness equal that?
J
joeybaggz
Guest
True, M, and I certainly agree that almost all law, moral or civil, sometimes needs interpretation by a competent judge. My post (position) though is aimed at the blanket concept that law is not objective, but subjective in nature as some would want it to be. Sorry, but that leads to my, “should race car drivers be allowed to 185mph in a school zone because they are the best drivers in the world, and who are we (the rest of society) to restrict their liberties?” example.
I grew up as a young boy and young man in a time when law was law and there was right and wrong. Divorce was uncommon, there were no school shootings, and leaders (civil) generally worked for the betterment of the people. Sure there were exceptions and some things needed change, but they were not the laws, they were the social conditions under which we lived. Today, everyone’s a victim of something, and the idea of taking care of oneself is the responsibility of others, not yourself.
And I have to ask the question, since there are conditions where, say for instance stealing, can be morally justified, should we get rid of the laws against stealing (not to mention the Commandment), and just let everyone do what they think is right? It is that attitude that I must take a position against. And please don’t say, of course we shouldn’t because that is what the libertarian type thinkers are pining for.
Shalom
Last edited:
K
kainosktisis
Guest
Maybe you should start by asking them to define good. What does being good mean to them? Let the conversation develop from there. Ask questions.
- Status