Right from the start of the chapter. They do not love God or their neighbor, they love only the outward observance of the law, which no one could manage (“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders”).
So, the poster who postulated definition of morality as physical, educational and financial wellbeing is ignoring the most significant criteria for determining morality of a particular age. Declaring that the current age is more moral based on that limited criteria is a non sequitur.
Exact opposite. Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites. They don’t acknowledge grace, for them salvation is earned by compliance with a rigid moral code. And so they had no concern with “the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness” but only with outward appearances. Their system was totally opposed to what Jesus taught. They were what we now call legalists.
Pope Benedict
Fascinating. In your view morality is about properly functioning society and you think our society is properly functioning? Further, you view the relaxation of rules due to increased material wealth as a definition of upward trajectory? I don’t see why materially poorer societies are intolerant as a matter of making due. If you’re referring to the scarcity of resources one would think an amoral society like our current society would be more beneficial: condoms, same sex marriage, abortion…all decreasing the birth rate and freeing up resources. Further, the need for rules is and laws in poorer societies is even more lacking: why would people who have nothing care to consent to laws that provide protections for material wealth (think about what’s going in liberal enclaves like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, etc…the rule of law seems to mean very little).
Health and literacy do not equate with morality. Think Nazi Germany.
Because that is how morality is commonly understood. You’re free to reject it ofcourse.
Agreed. I didn’t talk about people anyway; I talked about the morality of policy with regards to health and literacy.
I didn’t say that. I said that the policies that lead up to our current levels of health and literacy are more moral than policies that, for example, would have banned hospitals and schools. Whether we, the people of the 21st century, are more moral than people in previous centuries depends on our behaviour and the laws we make. I’m quite optimistic about that. In this century, we have increased the well-being of people in western societies enormously. For example, in many western countries, LGBT couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I know that many people here will disagree with same-sex marriage, but I think it’s moral because it has given LGBT couples an equal opportunity in their pursuit of happiness.
I don’t know what point you are trying to make. Using examples such as witches, the crusades, passages from the OT which only atheists seem to know, dirty priests, or social control by institutions is a dead give-away to me that the person has no idea of the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ. I don’t want to assume that you consider spirituality to be synonymous with superstition. That inference can naturally arise, since you could have used Ghengis Khan as an example. But, I suppose we have had enough of those within the last century. Again, if you were trying to make a point that you consider important, you may wish to clarify what it is. Maybe others didn’t get it either.And this year is a centenary of the Spa witch trial in 1616, when 14 women were sentenced to death by garrotting and burning. Ten were executed, the others possibly died in prison while being tortured. So yes, you’re right. (In other words, not sure it’s helpful to raise specific events).
So, presumably the rights of parents who want to marry their children and have babies with them in the pursuit of their happiness will also be the next right to be protected, and that will signal yet another advance in human happiness throughout western civilization?
I think marriages between cousins are already allowed in a great number of countries. Marriage between children and parents should not be allowed because of the enormous difference of power and authority in the relationship. Same reason why student-teacher relationships are not be allowed. Relationships between siblings are more difficult. The offspring of those relationships is often handicapped and I’d say it’s better that siblings not procreate.
He should have suffered for a few months more. that would have been the moral thing to do.
As they say, every era/culture is blind to its own absurdities. I once had a professor remark that history will likely view us favorably.
The sarcasm isn’t persuasive or logical. We all know that the best reasoning of both sides of the right-to-die/sanctity of life issue rises beyond this.
That would be a persuasive argument only if the child objected to the parent’s power and authority. Just as an unrelated man and woman enter in a marriage partnership and grant each other power and authority, sometimes not at all equal but acceptable to each, why would the same relationship be taboo between consenting mother and child, daughter and father?
Christ is the fulfillment of the law.
The moral thing to do is to do God’s will, which is to love one another. There seems to be no point in prolonging a meaningless life that has no potential for spiritual growth. It is difficult, if not impossible to make that determination even when we are dealing with ourselves. We have always had the right to refuse treatment for ourselves and our dependents who lack that capacity. Government agencies tend to step in if we do not appear competent ourselves. Jehovah Witnesses who have refused death soaring transfusions for their children have lost custody of their child in most jurisdictions. It seems wrong to prolong a life that would otherwise end without medical intervention in cases where there is nothing but suffering, where a person is unable to give of themselves in any way and work out their final dealings in this world with God and others.
It also rises beyond this