Moral Relativism

[ddarko]

Jesus knew existence outside his mortal being, men don’t. Jesus knew that he came to the world to be sacrificed, man doesn’t. Jesus knew that he would be seated at the right hand of the Father, we can only hope. We go by faith, He went by knowledge.
.

Btw, something to add to the previous post, men DO know that there is a heaven and that their purpose in this life is to Love God and neighbour as Christ did.

So in a way, Christ was just as human as we are. He had the fears that we did and even worse because he would have known exactly what was going to happen. I don’t know about you but there are times when I know pain will last only a minute and I still would hesitate to go ahead with certain actions. Imagine how Christ would have felt knowing the passion story before it happened.

Keep in mind, Jesus prayed in Gethsamane
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground." Luke 22:42-44

God Bless

 

[jonfawkes]

Not at all. No “sorry” about it whatsoever. But it does impact the quality and substance and essence of their loss of life, as compared to Maximilian Kolbe, who didn’t do this as part of his job.

But it is the “job”( for lack of better terminology) of the clergy to defend the faith - there is always the possibility of martyrdom. By choosing to be ordained you know that it is a possibility. Some more than others. I have a relative is clergy that worked in Central America in the 70’s and 80’s. It was a big risk. They went to it freely but knew the risks. I don’t see it differently from another service job that you may have to lay down your life.

 

[jonfawkes]

Btw, something to add to the previous post, men DO know that there is a heaven and that their purpose in this life is to Love God and neighbour as Christ did.

No we don’t know. We have faith that there is but we can’t know. Me, you, and everyone that ever was has never seen heaven and lived. We take it as a matter of faith.

 

[ddarko]

But it is the “job”( for lack of better terminology) of the clergy to defend the faith - there is always the possibility of martyrdom. By choosing to be ordained you know that it is a possibility. Some more than others. I have a relative is clergy that worked in Central America in the 70’s and 80’s. It was a big risk. They went to it freely but knew the risks. I don’t see it differently from another service job that you may have to lay down your life.

Actually, that is not correct.

Having to preach the word and having to die for it are two different things. When you go in to the seminary, it does not come with the obligation of having to die for someone. It is a free choice the priest makes.

In wars lives are lost. This is why Wars are discouraged. If you are a soldier, its possible that your life is lost in a war. That is also part of their duty to give their lives for the country. It is a very very great sacrifice. BUT, it is not FREE as that of a Max. Kolbe.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

No we don’t know. We have faith that there is but we can’t know. Me, you, and everyone that ever was has never seen heaven and lived. We take it as a matter of faith.

Um, I would like to stop this part of the discussion actually because I think it is getting a bit deep in to what Christ would have known and not known. You might also question as to what Christ could have concluded from what he knew. To be honest, I lack the theological understanding of this matter to an extent to discuss such matters.

Lets concentrate on Kolbe vs. Soldier. That is more identifiable as a human.

Now from so far, you agree that there are degrees of sacrifice. Because you said that Jesus’s sacrifice is greater than that of others. So in the same way, what makes you think that Kolbe’s sacrifice may not be greater than that of a soldiers?

God Bless

 

[PRmerger]

But it is the “job”( for lack of better terminology) of the clergy to defend the faith - there is always the possibility of martyrdom. By choosing to be ordained you know that it is a possibility. Some more than others. I have a relative is clergy that worked in Central America in the 70’s and 80’s. It was a big risk. They went to it freely but knew the risks. I don’t see it differently from another service job that you may have to lay down your life.

I was wondering when you would get to this.

So here’s the thing. Can you cite any church document that says that a priest must give his life in sacrifice for another? Is this a requirement of the clergy? Indeed, of any lay Catholic?

(I believe that a bishop states that he will give his life as a sacrifice for his flock, if needed–"Animam pro ovibus ponere" , but I don’t believe priests or the laity profess this.)

 

[jonfawkes]

I was wondering when you would get to this.

So here’s the thing. Can you cite any church document that says that a priest must give his life in sacrifice for another? Is this a requirement of the clergy? Indeed, of any lay Catholic?

(I believe that a bishop states that he will give his life as a sacrifice for his flock, if needed–"Animam pro ovibus ponere" , but I don’t believe priests or the laity profess this.)

Where is it in the police or fireman contracts? - it’s understood, not explicit.

 

[PRmerger]

Where is it in the police or fireman contracts? - it’s understood, not explicit.

I think you answered your own question.

 

[jonfawkes]

I think you answered your own question.

So it’s equally understood with the clergy.

 

[PRmerger]

So it’s equally understood with the clergy.

I don’t think so.

And I think that logic and reason and science backs me up.

I haven’t checked insurance rates for priests vs firemen, but I’m pretty sure it’s more expensive to insure a fireman…'cause it’s expected that he’s going to die (sorry to be so blunt, folks) at a much higher rate than a priest.

 

[fhansen]

I think you guys have beat this one to death but I have to say I agree with Jon on this-even if I haven’t agreed too much with him otherwise. Soldiers who jump on grenades aren’t going by the book or acting like mercenaries-it’s a very awesome thing they do that can’t be minimized. Love is love and God is pleased/His will is done anytime and anywhere this virtue is expressed on earth.

 

[jonfawkes]

I don’t think so.

And I think that logic and reason and science backs me up.

I haven’t checked insurance rates for priests vs firemen, but I’m pretty sure it’s more expensive to insure a fireman…'cause it’s expected that he’s going to die (sorry to be so blunt, folks) at a much higher rate than a priest.

It’s not the rate of risk, but rather the risk is there. My relative going to Central America as clergy knew their life was at risk. It was because they were clergy. Just because your parish priest is relatively safe doesn’t mean that that’s universally true.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you guys have beat this one to death

Yes. I agree.

but I have to say I agree with Jon on this-even if I haven’t agreed too much with him otherwise. Soldiers who jump on grenades aren’t going by the book or acting like mercenaries-it’s a very awesome thing they do that can’t be minimized.

No one here has minimized the heroic valor of a soldier who gives his life for his country.

Love is love and God is pleased/His will is done anytime and anywhere this virtue is expressed on earth.

Right. But the question is whether the soldier did this out of love of God. If he did, then we’re in agreement.

I just don’t think the example provided fits this category.

If he did it out of duty, or even because it was the right thing to do, it gains *nothing. * As St. Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

Right. But the question is whether the soldier did this out of love of God. If he did, then we’re in agreement.

I just don’t think the example provided fits this category.

If he did it out of duty, or even because it was the right thing to do, it gains *nothing. * As St. Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). :sad_yes:

And one more thing, which I found on the Catholic Answers website:

In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not cause us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10).

I rest my case. :curtsey:

 

[inocente]

I can’t.

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.

You might submit but I don’t have to. Which one is absolutely right - Matthew 12:30 or Mark 9:40? Or are they both relative to context?

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.”

Relative. A Hindu might say the same kind of thing.

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.

Relative. A Jew might say the same kind of thing.

PS: I enjoyed the discussion of Kolbe v soldier, but at the end of the day all it proved is that hit parades depend on who gets most sales/votes, which is about as relative as things get .

 

[jonfawkes]

If he did it out of duty, or even because it was the right thing to do, it gains *nothing. * As St. Paul says, “If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing” (1 Cor 13:3). :sad_yes:

You can’t know for a fact that Kolbe’s motivation wasn’t duty, or because it was the right thing to do. You can surmise that it was done out of love, but you can’t **know. **

 

[fhansen]

:
Relative. A Hindu might say the same kind of thing.

Relative. A Jew might say the same kind of thing.

PS: I enjoyed the discussion of Kolbe v soldier, but at the end of the day all it proved is that hit parades depend on who gets most sales/votes, which is about as relative as things get .

But these are questions which have to do with whether or not truth is relative-not morality. I mean isn’t it one thing to say that we can’t know the truth of the matter, but an entirely different thing to say that the truth is relative to what we believe it to be?

 

[inocente]

But these are questions which have to do with whether or not truth is relative-not morality. I mean isn’t it one thing to say that we can’t know the truth of the matter, but an entirely different thing to say that the truth is relative to what we believe it to be?

On the one hand there are disciplines where we more or less have absolutes – the equations of physics, the original papers in history and so on. They don’t have authority over us, they’re just undeniable facts. But with morality everything is a bit squidgy since various holy books, systems of ethics and cultures tend to come up with different answers.

I can see Benedict’s good point against moral experimentation and anarchy, but the basic issue for me is that Jesus teaches us more about our attitudes toward each other rather than giving us a set of mindless rules, and what’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for me.

Saying that moral truths are out there somewhere doesn’t say much at all if we can’t find them, or if the people who think they found them disagree about what they are.

At the end of the day, we should each do what we think is right. Is that being relatively absolute or absolutely relative?

 

[fhansen]

On the one hand there are disciplines where we more or less have absolutes – the equations of physics, the original papers in history and so on. They don’t have authority over us, they’re just undeniable facts. But with morality everything is a bit squidgy since various holy books, systems of ethics and cultures tend to come up with different answers.

I can see Benedict’s good point against moral experimentation and anarchy, but the basic issue for me is that Jesus teaches us more about our attitudes toward each other rather than giving us a set of mindless rules, and what’s good enough for Jesus is good enough for me.

Saying that moral truths are out there somewhere doesn’t say much at all if we can’t find them, or if the people who think they found them disagree about what they are.

At the end of the day, we should each do what we think is right. Is that being relatively absolute or absolutely relative?

What I’m saying is that when we’re speaking about the nature of a God who we believe exists or the nature of a creature or a law of physics or the mineral content of a planet, most would agree that we’re contemplating a truth regardless of whether or not we can verify it. OTOH, this thread is about whether or not absolute moral truths exist at all.

 

[jonfawkes]

All these things are based on our perception of these things. I can say solid, liquid, gas (classic) states of matter are an absolute.(there are other states e.x plasma, super fluid etc but for this discussion) This is our perception. A solid isn’t solid under an electron microscope. It’s mostly nothing, empty space. Electrons only hold a set position on the condition of observance. They can be at two places at once.

Our morality is based on our perception of an absolute. It doesn’t make it so. It is relative to our observation.