Moral dilemma.

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No it does not. It makes it ones belief. Belief does not define truth.
In matters of faith it does

Belief is paramount for religious truth. They are relative truths, hinging on belief. There is no way to objective prove transubstantiation nor moral absolutes. We can believe them to be truth, but they are only true for the believer.

Your implication that transubstantiation and other matters of faith are universal truth demonstrates to me at least, that my analysis of your original statement was correct.
 
In matters of faith it does

Belief is paramount for religious truth. They are relative truths, hinging on belief. There is no way to objective prove transubstantiation nor moral absolutes. We can believe them to be truth, but they are only true for the believer.

Your implication that transubstantiation and other matters of faith are universal truth demonstrates to me at least, that my analysis of your original statement was correct.
I cannot take your word for it. Please look up the definition of “truth”. It does not mean what you say it does.

Truth is what is real, whether material or spiritual.

Can you make the earth flat by believing it is so?

If something is true, it is true for everyone, regards of whether they believe it.

At this point I don’t think you understand my statements, nor the principle of truth.
 
I cannot take your word for it. Please look up the definition of “truth”. It does not mean what you say it does.

Truth is what is real, whether material or spiritual.

Can you make the earth flat by believing it is so?

If something is true, it is true for everyone, regards of whether they believe it.

At this point I don’t think you understand my statements, nor the principle of truth.
How can we prove transubstantiation is a truth? It is a matter of faith. True for Catholics not universally.
 
If you think truth is contextual understanding then we are not communicating.
Good day.
Transubstantiation is a perfect example of a contextual understanding. It is truth in the context of Catholicism.

A secular example is a table which is solid, it is made of atoms which are mostly empty space. You could say “well which is it, solid or empty space - it can’t be both” It is both it just depends on the context. The perspective from where you are looking.
 
Take any catholic philosopher that argues against homosexuality, and it is religiously based - any one take your pick. 'Natural Law" is a religious position not a secular nor a scientific one.

catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp
First, natural law is not a religious position. The opening paragraph of the Stanford Enc. of Philosophy article on the subject:
‘Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality. We will be concerned only with natural law theories of ethics: while such views arguably have some interesting implications for law, politics, and religious morality, these implications will not be our focus here.
Nor is it the only absolutist framework in which homosexuality can be condemned. Maybe you should just admit you don’t know what you’re talking about, then you can get on with actually learning something?

Second, what is the point of your link? This??:
Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

Third, you have still refused to give an honest answer to my question - WHY IS THAT??
 
Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes in two forms appeal to “Natural Law” and appeal to scriptural doctrine. Google Christianity and Homosexuality - read every link until your eyes bleed.

If you know of a Catholic or Christian condemnation of Homosexuality that doesn’t appeal to scriptural doctrine or “natural law” please provide a link. You say that Catholic condemnation doesn’t appeal to these things - prove it. I provided a link that expresses a Catholic view (from this site no less) , you provide one that supports your position.
 
Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes in two forms appeal to “Natural Law” and appeal to scriptural doctrine. Google Christianity and Homosexuality - read every link until your eyes bleed.

If you know of a Catholic or Christian condemnation of Homosexuality that doesn’t appeal to scriptural doctrine or “natural law” please provide a link. You say that Catholic condemnation doesn’t appeal to these things - prove it. I provided a link that expresses a Catholic view (from this site no less) , you provide one that supports your position.
jon, again: Natural law arguments are not religious arguments. An appeal to natural law is not an appeal to religious faith. Also, again: natural law is not the only absolutist framework in which homosexuality can be condemned. Do you get that? Heard of Kant, for example?

Second, the link you cited does not appeal to scripture to *ground *its natural law condemnation of morality. (I hope you understand the difference between *grounding *and confirming.) It is not a philosophical piece and is probably not written by a philosopher, however, so you still haven’t given me an honest answer to my question: Name one absolutist moral philosopher who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?

By the way, let me remind you, the question here is not about “Christian condemnations of homosexuality” - it is about absolutist (vs. relativist) construals of morality. Try to stay relevant.
 
jon, again: Natural law arguments are not religious arguments. An appeal to natural law is not an appeal to religious faith. Also, again: natural law is not the only absolutist framework in which homosexuality can be condemned. Do you get that? Heard of Kant, for example?

Second, the link you cited does not appeal to scripture to *ground *its natural law condemnation of morality. (I hope you understand the difference between *grounding *and confirming.) It is not a philosophical piece and is probably not written by a philosopher, however, so you still haven’t given me an honest answer to my question: Name one absolutist moral philosopher who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?

By the way, let me remind you, the question here is not about “Christian condemnations of homosexuality” - it is about absolutist (vs. relativist) construals of morality. Try to stay relevant.
Homosexuality is being discussed in the context of a moral absolute.

Natural law is being appealed to - from the article I posted
The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.
It is an appeal because it gives no supporting evidence for it’s claims. The claim that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman is a religious claim.

Humans occur in nature. homosexuality occurs in humans. Homosexuality is in the natural realm. It is not the norm, but neither is left handedness, no one claims that left handedness is unnatural or immoral.

Again show me a Catholic philosophical argument that doesn’t appeal to scripture or appeal (spuriously) to “natural” law.

Ball is in your court.
 
Homosexuality is being discussed in the context of a moral absolute.

Natural law is being appealed to - from the article I posted

It is an appeal because it gives no supporting evidence for it’s claims. The claim that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman is a religious claim.

Humans occur in nature. homosexuality occurs in humans. Homosexuality is in the natural realm. It is not the norm, but neither is left handedness, no one claims that left handedness is unnatural or immoral.

Again show me a Catholic philosophical argument that doesn’t appeal to scripture or appeal (spuriously) to “natural” law.

Ball is in your court.
Do you know what Natural Law is?
Where does it come from?
 
I reject you secular source’s ambiguous rhetoric in favor of the Church’s definition.
1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
1958 The natural law is *immutable *and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

6 GS 89 § 1.
7 St. Augustine, De Trin. 14,15,21:PL 42,1052.
8 St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. præc. I.
9 Cicero, Rep. III,22,33.
10 Cf. GS 10.
11 St. Augustine, Conf. 2,4,9:PL 32,678.
12 Pius XII, Humani generis: DS 3876; cf. Dei Filius 2: DS 3005.
You also failed to answer where Natural Law comes from.

It comes from God.
 
I reject you secular source’s ambiguous rhetoric in favor of the Church’s definition.

You also failed to answer where Natural Law comes from.

It comes from God.
Both your rejection and answer are statements of faith
  • which is exactly what I’m saying, the condemnation of Homosexuality has to come from the context of faith, which is what you are doing.
Faith is relative to the religion.
 
Homosexuality is being discussed in the context of a moral absolute.
Uh, yeah… but you aren’t discussing it in a way that makes clear what its relevance is.
Natural law is being appealed to - from the article I posted
It is an appeal because it gives no supporting evidence for it’s claims. The claim that the natural sex partner for a man is a woman is a religious claim.
LOL! How the heck is that a “religious claim”??
Humans occur in nature. homosexuality occurs in humans. Homosexuality is in the natural realm. It is not the norm, but neither is left handedness, no one claims that left handedness is unnatural or immoral.
LOL! So what??
Again show me a Catholic philosophical argument that doesn’t appeal to scripture or appeal (spuriously) to “natural” law.
LOL! First, show me what is spurious about appeals to natural law.

Then PLEASE try to notice, DON’T make me point it out again, that this discussion is about absolutist arguments, not ‘Catholic’ ones.

Properly speaking there is no such thing as a “Catholic philosophical argument” - do you understand that?? That’s like talking about the ‘Chinese triangle,’ or the ‘female right to life,’ or ‘the fishes’ ocean’ - if we’re talking about triangles, or the right to life, or the oceans, those are all useless, misleading modifiers.
 
Your citing a conceptually complex article like this without saying a word about it is a bit of a joke. You’ve already proven that your reading comprehension skills are not very good. You have given us no reason to think you’ve read or understood the article you cite here.
 
Uh, yeah… but you aren’t discussing it in a way that makes clear what its relevance is.

LOL! How the heck is that a “religious claim”??

LOL! So what??

LOL! First, show me what is spurious about appeals to natural law.

Then PLEASE try to notice, DON’T make me point it out again, that this discussion is about absolutist arguments, not ‘Catholic’ ones.

Properly speaking there is no such thing as a “Catholic philosophical argument” - do you understand that??
I’m sorry if you are having trouble following along, maybe rereading it may help.

It is a religious claim in that “natural” means “only”, This stems from the OT, and NT stances on Homosexuality and creation stories found in the OT.

It is a spurious claim because - some humans have homosexual sex partners, humans are part of nature, therefore human homosexuality is part of nature.

You can argue that homosexuality is abnormal or deviates from the norm, but not that it’s not natural. It occurs in nature. Like left handedness, or dwarfism or any other deviations from the norm of human behavior and physiology. They occur in nature. They aren’t given immoral stature because of the deviation from the norm.

There are philosophical arguments that come from a catholic perspective. Here is a list of Catholic philosophers and theologians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_philosophers_and_theologians
 
Your dishonesty is getting depressing. One more time:

Name one absolutist moral philosopher who argues in the way in which you claim - without providing one scrap of evidence - that all absolutist moral philosophers argue: by saying “God says so.” Can you or can you not do that?
 
I’m sorry if you are having trouble following along, maybe rereading it may help.
Re-reading what?
It is a religious claim in that “natural” means “only”, This stems from the OT, and NT stances on Homosexuality and creation stories found in the OT.
LOL! Is that supposed to make sense? “Natural” means “only”??? And “only” stems from the Bible? What are you talking about??
It is a spurious claim because - some humans have homosexual sex partners, humans are part of nature, therefore human homosexuality is part of nature.
So what?
You can argue that homosexuality is abnormal or deviates from the norm, but not that it’s not natural. It occurs in nature. Like left handedness, or dwarfism or any other deviations from the norm of human behavior and physiology. They occur in nature. They aren’t given immoral stature because of the deviation from the norm.
What are you going on about? Do you know how to structure an argument in terms of premises and conclusion, where your conclusion is relevant and follows from your premises? Can you try to do so?
There are philosophical arguments that come from a catholic perspective. Here is a list of Catholic philosophers and theologians. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_philosophers_and_theologians
Thanks, genius. There are also Chinese geometers, and females who have a right to life, and fish who live in the ocean - so what?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top