Moral Relativism

[PRmerger]

Wasn’t my idea to refer to Kolbe, I’d never even heard of him before.

Yes, it was I who brought up the example of the great sacrifice of love of Maximilian Kolbe.

Anyway, “a sacrifice of one’s life is an absolute good” is patently false in an age of suicide bombers .

Right. A sacrifice of one’s life is NOT an absolute good.

However, there is no greater* love *than to lay down one’s life for a friend.

No, really dude, we must be using very different definitions of the word authority –

Clearly.

to put us on the same page, could you cite a dictionary that says gravity has authority over us?

I can’t.

But can you defy gravity?

Two questions.

1. Why must we submit to a final authority?

We must submit to a final authority on issues where there are questions as to what is true and what is false.

For example, you submit to the “final authority” of the CC each and every time you quote Scripture, for you would not know, of your own authority, whether “my breath is offensive to my wife” is theopneustos or not. You don’t have that authority.

1. How can God be that authority when we don’t know His mind?

Ah, but inocente, Catholics can know the very mind of God because we know Jesus. As Kreeft states, , Jesus is “the very mind of God, fresh water springing straight from the glacier of God’s heavenly mountain, refreshing the soul and welling up with eternal life.”

For example, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Christians have various views on the rightness or wrongness of artificial contraception. Which absolutely knows the mind of God, and how?

Well, Catholics know. You are like a tourist who is wondering how to get to Chicago, and saying, “Hmmm…I have a general idea that I need to go east.” Catholics have the map. In fact, we have the Mapmaker.

 

[PRmerger]

Collectively these are a statement of quantity. One sacrifice is greater than the other.

Yes, indeed. Maximilian’s sacrifice is supremely greater than that of a valorous soldier.

'm saying S1=S2, your are saying S≠S, that S1 > S2.

Yes, that* is* what I am saying.

Max > soldier.

In quality, not quantity.

 

[PRmerger]

This is not what the other is saying. You misunderstood.

Actually, david, my comment can be reduced to that mathematical equation. It’s just not quantifiable, but qualifiable.

 

[jonfawkes]

Yes, indeed. Maximilian’s sacrifice is supremely greater than that of a valorous soldier.

Yes, that* is* what I am saying.

Max > soldier.

In quality, not quantity.

Keeping in mind the axiom of John 15:13 -

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

So what is the qualitative difference? - the amount of love is equal inherent in the sacrifice. The is no greater love - you can’t sacrifice more, you can’t have a greater love.

 

[PRmerger]

Keeping in mind the axiom of John 15:13 -

So what is the qualitative difference? - the amount of love is equal inherent in the sacrifice. The is no greater love - you can’t sacrifice more, you can’t have a greater love.

This is the essence of what I’ve been saying… Sacrificial love is different, and greater, than heroic valor.

There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friend.

If a soldier, or a dog, did it out of love, for one’s “friend”, then it rivals that of what Maximilian Kolbe did. I just don’t think the example you provided is such an example.

Just like the difference between the widow’s mite and the rich man. One gave out of love.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is the essence of what I’ve been saying… Sacrificial love is different, and greater, than heroic valor.

There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friend.

If a soldier, or a dog, did it out of love, for one’s “friend”, then it rivals that of what Maximilian Kolbe did. I just don’t think the example you provided is such an example.

Just like the difference between the widow’s mite and the rich man. One gave out of love.

This is where you lose me - both acts are acts of sacrificial love.

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

To lay your life down is an act of love. Regardless of the motivation, it is an act of love. It is inherent in the act. You can’t separate the two.

 

[PRmerger]

To lay your life down is an act of love. Regardless of the motivation, it is an act of love. It is inherent in the act. You can’t separate the two.

You can say that in the wake of 911?

As inocente said, simply laying one’s life down is not an absolute good.

 

[jonfawkes]

No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life **for one’s friends. **

I’m not saying it Jesus did.

911 isn’t a case of laying down one’s life for a friend.

It was a case of murdering people while having no regard for themselves. The goal wasn’t to save anyone or do it in defense of another, but to murder. It is an act of hate.

To try and save someone by sacrificing your life for theirs is an act of love.

 

[ddarko]

This is where you lose me - both acts are acts of sacrificial love.

To lay your life down is an act of love. Regardless of the motivation, it is an act of love. It is inherent in the act. You can’t separate the two.

Hi,

I think PRmerger is correct.

If I may attempt at explaining matters in a different way, I would like to make the statement that

Max. > Soldier (in general)

First, let me explain the qualifier in general

A soldier in general follows orders. The duty of a soldier is a to fight for the country, or people he protects and it is his/her livelihood. In general, soldiers don’t work part-time in the battlefield as Charity. They do it because it is their job. This is not to take anything away from what a soldier does.

To give you a similar example, if a Doctor saves the life of a patient, it is certainly WORTHY. BUT, it is his job to save the patient and to an extent, there was limited freedom in the matter for a Doctor.

In the case of Max. he chose FREELY to give his life in place of a stranger. The “FREELY” part is the difference. It wasn’t an order from his commanding officer. It wasn’t out of friendship or attachment to the same platoon or nation. It was done FREELY for a complete STRANGER. Not from an attachment or duty.

Now it is possible that a soldier could do such sacrifice. BUT, in general, when a soldier dies in the battlefield, that is more in the line of duty as opposed to a free choice.

A good example here as a soldier is, which do you consider greater

1. A soldier who dies in the line of duty during an assault on an enemy location?
   OR
2. A soldier who dies shielding an infant from a barrage of gunfire in a battlefield?

Love is proper when it is freely given. The more freely given, the more expressive Love is. Therefore, Max.'s sacrifice is a more POWERFUL and MOVING expression of LOVE than a sacrifice of a soldier IN GENERAL.

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

Hi,

I think PRmerger is correct.

If I may attempt at explaining matters in a different way, I would like to make the statement that

Max. > Soldier (in general)

First, let me explain the qualifier in general

A soldier in general follows orders. The duty of a soldier is a to fight for the country, or people he protects and it is his/her livelihood. In general, soldiers don’t work part-time in the battlefield. They do it because it is there job.

Now if a Doctor saves the life of a patient, it is certainly WORTHY. BUT, it is his job to save the patient and to an extent, there was limited freedom in the matter.

In the case of Max. he chose FREELY to give his life in place of a stranger. The “FREELY” part is the difference. It wasn’t an order from his commanding officer. It wasn’t out of friendship or attachment to the same team. It was done FREELY for a complete stranger.

Now it is possible that a soldier could do such sacrifice. BUT, in general, when a soldier dies in the battlefield, that is more in the line of duty as opposed to a free choice.

Love is proper when it is freely given. The more freely given, the more expressive Love is. Therefore, Max.'s sacrifice is a more POWERFUL and MOVING expression of LOVE than a sacrifice of a soldier IN GENERAL.

God Bless

Right but we aren’t talking about just simply a battlefield casualty, but the willful act of laying down one’s life to save another, as is the case with some Congressional Medal of Honor winners.

 

[PRmerger]

911 isn’t a case of laying down one’s life for a friend.

I agree. You just forgot the important part.

To lay your life down is an act of love. Regardless of the motivation, it is an act of love. It is inherent in the act. You can’t separate the two.

See, you forgot the “friend” part above.

To try and save someone by sacrificing your life for theirs is an act of love.

It certainly can be. It doesn’t have to be. There is no evidence that soldiers do this out of love. In general. I can’t speak to specific soldiers. And neither can you.

 

[ddarko]

Right but we aren’t talking about just simply a battlefield casualty, but the willful act of laying down one’s life to save another, as is the case with some Congressional Medal of Honor winners.

And I think it depends on a case by case basis. ( I did some edits to my previous post which you might have missed btw)

If the person laid their life for someone of their own platoon or nation, then it might not be much of a sacrifice compared to Max.'s. Many would happily lay down their lives for their families, friends and loved ones. But no so when it comes to a complete stranger.

In Max.'s case, you have him sacrificing his life FREELY for a complete STRANGER. It is as free as love can get.

Therefore, not many sacrifices can match it.

This is not to say laying ones life down for ones family is not worthy of praise. I would say its putting things more in to perspective. My sacrifice of fasting is still a sacrifice. But it pales in comparison to that of Christ’s on the cross. It’s a similar comparison here.

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

It certainly can be. It doesn’t have to be.

Yes, it does if you believe Jesus -

This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

Inherent in the act is love.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi,

I think PRmerger is correct.

If I may attempt at explaining matters in a different way, I would like to make the statement that

Max. > Soldier (in general)

First, let me explain the qualifier in general

A soldier in general follows orders. The duty of a soldier is a to fight for the country, or people he protects and it is his/her livelihood. In general, soldiers don’t work part-time in the battlefield as Charity. They do it because it is their job. This is not to take anything away from what a soldier does.

To give you a similar example, if a Doctor saves the life of a patient, it is certainly WORTHY. BUT, it is his job to save the patient and to an extent, there was limited freedom in the matter for a Doctor.

In the case of Max. he chose FREELY to give his life in place of a stranger. The “FREELY” part is the difference. It wasn’t an order from his commanding officer. It wasn’t out of friendship or attachment to the same platoon or nation. It was done FREELY for a complete STRANGER. Not from an attachment or duty.

Now it is possible that a soldier could do such sacrifice. BUT, in general, when a soldier dies in the battlefield, that is more in the line of duty as opposed to a free choice.

A good example here as a soldier is, which do you consider greater

1. A soldier who dies in the line of duty during an assault on an enemy location?
   OR
2. A soldier who dies shielding an infant from a barrage of gunfire in a battlefield?

Love is proper when it is freely given. The more freely given, the more expressive Love is. Therefore, Max.'s sacrifice is a more POWERFUL and MOVING expression of LOVE than a sacrifice of a soldier IN GENERAL.

God Bless

This is very helpful and insightful, indeed. :tiphat:

Thus, in addition to the LOVE that Maximilian Kolbe offered in his sacrificial offering of his life, it was done completely FREELY.

This cannot be said of soldiers. In general. Even Congressional Medal of Honor “winners.”

 

[PRmerger]

Inherent in the act is love.

Indeed. Love must be involved. Edit: but it may not be. So I amend–laying one’s life down is not inherently loving.

I’ve never seen or read anything about love of neighbor in any military handbook.

Not that I’ve read any. but I’m just sayin’.

 

[jonfawkes]

Indeed. Love must be involved. Edit: but it may not be. So I amend–laying one’s life down is not inherently loving.

I’ve never seen or read anything about love of neighbor in any military handbook.

Not that I’ve read any. but I’m just sayin’.

So you are saying “Jesus is wrong.”

 

[jonfawkes]

This is very helpful and insightful, indeed. :tiphat:

Thus, in addition to the LOVE that Maximilian Kolbe offered in his sacrificial offering of his life, it was done completely FREELY.

This cannot be said of soldiers. In general. Even Congressional Medal of Honor “winners.”

That is the point of the CMH - they go above and beyond their orders and duty and act freely to exceed what is expected of them. No gets one for just following orders.

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying “Jesus is wrong.”

Stop it.

Don’t be inflammatory. You know you are talking to a Catholic and saying such things is contemptuous of my beliefs.

Now back to the discussion: if the soldier did this with Jesus in mind, then I have no argument with you here.

But then it goes back to the primordial discussion: one needs Jesus to have great sacrificial love. There* is* no other way.

 

[PRmerger]

That is the point of the CMH - they go above and beyond their orders and duty and act freely to exceed what is expected of them. No gets one for just following orders.

Really. They get it for disobeying orders?

(I see your descriptor “just” in the “following orders” phrase, BTW. My point is that they were indeed following orders. They just followed their orders to the logical, necessary conclusion.)

 

[jonfawkes]

Really. They get it for disobeying orders?

(I see your descriptor “just” in the “following orders” phrase, BTW. My point is that they were indeed following orders. They just followed their orders to the logical, necessary conclusion.)

No, they are going “above and beyond”.

A very pedestrian example - If one is given the order “wipe off the kitchen table” and then also cleans the whole kitchen - they are going “above and beyond” the order. Cleaning the whole kitchen isn’t the logical conclusion.