Moral Relativism

[grannymh]

My apology.
But I cannot continue reading this post because the opening sentences are very far from
the truth of Catholicism.
Most likely the truth of Catholicism regarding the reason God created the human person
is off topic.
The thread’s topic of relativism allows any old reason for humans living on earth so apparently my observation would not be allowed since it points to a definite Catholic reason in my humble opinion.

Continuation of this post…

Flansen,
This is why I consider your opening sentences to be far from Catholic teaching. They remind me of the postings by people trying to explain original sin as fluff or not the responsibility of human nature. Then there is the other extreme where a poster described humans as sin machines because sin had been allowed.

In brief, there are too many generic sentences when people explain the creation of man to be one way and then another. Why is it so difficult to give the purpose of man from the viewpoint of Catholic teaching? The purpose of man is what drives morality.

Since people have been talking about God, I will continue with my observation. Catholic teaching starts with the reason that man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake and man alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. Man’s human nature is an unique unification of the rational/corporeal–soul/body. The whole purpose of human nature is an eternal relationship with God. God created man to be one way as human nature. There is no allowing him to be another nature as some posters have implied.

God endowed man with the spiritual faculties of intellect and will from the beginning. This is not the same as saying that God allowed sin from the beginning. Intellect and will should not be used as the proof for sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 explains that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.
In my humble opinion, this statement takes quite some time to understand. One has to go back to the fact that God created us in His Image as a spiritual creature who can only live in God’s friendship through free submission to God. The “free submission” is what God allows with “free” meaning the use of intellect and will. Because of human nature uniting both the material and spiritual worlds, man has the possibility of choosing one over the other, i.e., that is preferring himself to God.

Relativism is one of the philosophies that permits choosing one’s own self over submission to God. The Catechism closes paragraph 396 with this sentence: “Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”

Blessings,
granny

Human nature seeks truth.

 

[inocente]

Relativism is one of the philosophies that permits choosing one’s own self over submission to God.

Some kinds. The central issue for me is that God’s will is not something that is absolutely knowable, all each of us can do is try our best. If we each submit freely to God but then arrive at differing conclusions, logic does not automatically dictate that one of us is wrong and the other is right. It may instead mean that God is telling us different things, shades of Romans 14. God can tell me, but no person may tell me what they think God should tell me.

Happy New Year for all those who count years that way.

 

[fhansen]

Continuation of this post…

Flansen,
This is why I consider your opening sentences to be far from Catholic teaching. They remind me of the postings by people trying to explain original sin as fluff or not the responsibility of human nature. Then there is the other extreme where a poster described humans as sin machines because sin had been allowed.

In brief, there are too many generic sentences when people explain the creation of man to be one way and then another. Why is it so difficult to give the purpose of man from the viewpoint of Catholic teaching? The purpose of man is what drives morality.

Since people have been talking about God, I will continue with my observation. Catholic teaching starts with the reason that man is the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake and man alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. Man’s human nature is an unique unification of the rational/corporeal–soul/body. The whole purpose of human nature is an eternal relationship with God. God created man to be one way as human nature. There is no allowing him to be another nature as some posters have implied.

God endowed man with the spiritual faculties of intellect and will from the beginning. This is not the same as saying that God allowed sin from the beginning. Intellect and will should not be used as the proof for sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, paragraph 396 explains that the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust.
In my humble opinion, this statement takes quite some time to understand. One has to go back to the fact that God created us in His Image as a spiritual creature who can only live in God’s friendship through free submission to God. The “free submission” is what God allows with “free” meaning the use of intellect and will. Because of human nature uniting both the material and spiritual worlds, man has the possibility of choosing one over the other, i.e., that is preferring himself to God.

Relativism is one of the philosophies that permits choosing one’s own self over submission to God. The Catechism closes paragraph 396 with this sentence: “Man is dependent on his Creator and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.”

Blessings,
granny

Human nature seeks truth.

So far I haven’t seen where your statements conflict with mine. God created man one way (gave man a nature which He did not create nor desire man to stray from) while allowing him to be another (gave man free will, which allows for the ability to oppose His will, i.e. to sin).

 

[fhansen]

Some kinds. The central issue for me is that God’s will is not something that is absolutely knowable, all each of us can do is try our best. If we each submit freely to God but then arrive at differing conclusions, logic does not automatically dictate that one of us is wrong and the other is right. It may instead mean that God is telling us different things, shades of Romans 14. God can tell me, but no person may tell me what they think God should tell me.

Happy New Year for all those who count years that way.

You have the right to object to another persons telling you Gods will, but, in general terms, don’t you think humankind is in need of knowing it? I mean, if there is a God, then the truth regarding Him and His will for man isn’t relative.

Even statements such as, “God exists”, “God is love”, “God is our father”, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, or “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” are too dogmatic, too authoritarian, too absolute for some. Some of these can even conflict with some other major religions discussed here.

 

[grannymh]

Granny, maybe you could explain what you mean. Do you agree with the statement in my post, a statement regarding man’s free will, or do you have a different objection?

I’ve finished my morning Pepsi so I am not as cranky as I was earlier. Thank you for your patience. I had been interrupted while I was writing post 521 so when I had the chance to post it, I did not see your post 519.

Is this the statement you are referring to? “Objective morality exists but man is free to reject it-is free to create his own, subjective, morality.” Taken out of context, I do agree with it because it is a good example of reality.

My personal difficulty with any discussion along the lines of this thread is that comments do not go deep enough into man’s nature. Man’s peerless nature is what makes a relationship with God possible in the first place. This is a relationship in which the created, you and me, need to realize up front that we have to be submissive to our Creator in order to be in His eternal friendship following death.

I agree with you that Adam’s act was self-destructive because he went against the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his own good. Adam preferred himself to God and by that very act, he scorned God. Listening to the temptations of the devil, Adam let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God’s command.

There really are objective (meaning existing without our personal affirmation) moral norms which govern our use of freedom. The basic difficulty with relativism is that it transfers the responsibility for objective morality from God, the Creator to the limited human creatures. We may be the pinnacle of creation; yet, we are still limited compared to the pure Spirit Who is God Who created human nature.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.
.

 

[inocente]

You have the right to object to another persons telling you Gods will, but, in general terms, don’t you think humankind is in need of knowing it? I mean, if there is a God, then the truth regarding Him and His will for man isn’t relative.

Some people want us all to go in one direction, others somewhere else. We fumble about and eventually find a common course forward. If we’re wrong we’ll work it out eventually, all authoritarian regimes and fundamentalisms die off in the long run.

To me, that’s the way God made us, that’s how we collectively come to know God’s will.

 

[fhansen]

Some people want us all to go in one direction, others somewhere else. We fumble about and eventually find a common course forward. If we’re wrong we’ll work it out eventually, all authoritarian regimes and fundamentalisms die off in the long run.

To me, that’s the way God made us, that’s how we collectively come to know God’s will.

But you’d also agree that revelation has something to do with it? Do you think man, on his own, is somehow guaranteed to fumble his way to a moral world where God’s will is done?

 

[grannymh]

So far I haven’t seen where your statements conflict with mine. God created man one way (gave man a nature which He did not create nor desire man to stray from) while allowing him to be another (gave man free will, which allows for the ability to oppose His will, i.e. to sin).

Your opening in post 389 is not a matter of conflict. It is that, in my humble opinion, it is far from Catholic teaching. Distance does not automatically indicate conflict. I presented my personal difficulty with distance in post 525.

However, your current explanation is another story which I believe is important to discuss because I have seen something somewhat similar (on a CAF post) which can be traced to an early form of Calvinism. The claim was that human nature was totally corrupted by original sin–in other words human descendents of Adam would start out with another nature than the first one.

Also, I am wondering about the Catholic teaching which points out that the human will seeks the greatest good which would be God; however, the human intellect and will has the ability to choose a lesser good. Relativism is good for sugar coating a bad choice by considering it a “good” even though it is not helping one’s personal friendship with God.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

The “Twelve Days of Christmas” are meant to be celebrated.

 

[grannymh]

Some people want us all to go in one direction, others somewhere else. We fumble about and eventually find a common course forward. If we’re wrong we’ll work it out eventually, all authoritarian regimes and fundamentalisms die off in the long run.

To me, that’s the way God made us, that’s how we collectively come to know God’s will.

Since Christ died for all, and since all humanity are called to the one and the same destiny of sharing in God’s presence after death, Catholics hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of this eternal life with God in ways only known to God. In other words, we should not underestimate the power of God to touch a soul.

It is important to remember that God does not look at the human person as a collective group. God looks at us as individuals with individual struggles. It is the honest search for God and the willingness to live in submission to Him through our actions that puts us on the path of salvation promised by a crucified Savior. One of the dangers of any kind of relativism is that it erodes humility.

Blessings for the new year,
granny

 

[PRmerger]

No idea, I’ve not read much of the Quran. Suggest you ask a Muslim.

By this statement you answer that you understand that the Koran is **not **theopneustos.

And you know this because the CC has discerned this for you.

[SIGN1]By no other authority do you know this. [/SIGN1]

Twas that if people in other cultures to your own can lead peaceful, good lives, who’s to say, absolutely, which folk are or are not divinely inspired?

Ah. I didn’t see any mention of peaceful, good lives in your story. Calculus and matrix multiplication, though, were referenced, curiously. :coffeeread:

But, regardless, I have never professed that non-Christians can’t lead peaceful, good lives. In fact, some of the most peaceful, godly people I know aren’t Christian.

So why, you may ask, believe in Christianity?

Because it’s true, of course!

That’s really the only reason to believe something, isn’t it?

One can believe in Santa and that can make someone peaceful and good, but if it’s not true, it’s really not that good of an idea to believe in him, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

Some more than others. Relatively. Some are just “all who have eyes to see” mystical stuff.

And what is it that you use to determine whether it’s really God’s Words or not?

 

[PRmerger]

Did you notice yet that I’m not a Catholic?

Yes, I read the “Baptist (noooooo)” on your posts.

But this is irrelevant. And it proves our point. Even a Muslim would be able to look at the history of the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Nicea and see that it was Catholic bishops who discerned the canon of Scripture.

Even a Baptist can see this.

But anyway, by that logic all bishops are automatically more authoritative about stamps than other stamp collectors .

Huh?

I’m just saying that it was Catholic bishops who discerned the canon of Scripture for you.

It’s a historical truth. It’s an objective truth. A Muslim or Baptist or atheist can read the history books and come to the same understanding: Catholic bishops met at the Councils way back in history and discerned for you what was God’s Word and what wasn’t.

And each and every time you quote Scripture you are giving tacit approval to the CC’s authority.

And how, O wise dude, are you certain of what I believe?

Oh, it’s 'cause I am certain that you do not believed that some folks who believe that sacrificing their baby to the god Moloch is just fine and dandy with you.

And I am certain that you do not believe that a man can marry anyone he chooses, regardless of her age, and whether he’s already married.

And I am guessing that you do not believe that the folks that profess that Jesus died for only white folks is just fine and dandy with you. (And if you do believe this, we are done.)

And I am certain that you don’t believe that folks who offer ritual sexual sacrifices on their altars is fine and dandy with you.

And you’re not ok with folks who profess that women are for childbearing only.

So, you really don’t profess “different strokes for different folks” do you?

 

[PRmerger]

Which was kind of my point. A Sikh, Hindu, etc. has precisely the same kind of authority from their personal belief and their tradition. Can you give me an absolute proof that you’re right and they’re wrong? Obviously without referring back to our scriptures or traditions since the Sikh or Hindu can do exactly the same with theirs, and without appealing to numbers of believers unless you’d like to have a bash at proving that might is right.

Then you’re in no position to be able to evanglize to Sikhs or Hindus. You can’t profess any truth to them if you believe you have no authority derived from Christ.

This is why if a Sikh or Hindu is going to be converted by apologetics, it’s going to be by Catholic apologetics, not by Baptist apologetics.

 

[jonfawkes]

Then you’re in no position to be able to evanglize to Sikhs or Hindus. You can’t profess any truth to them if you believe you have no authority derived from Christ.

This is why if a Sikh or Hindu is going to be converted by apologetics, it’s going to be by Catholic apologetics, not by Baptist apologetics.

How do you “fer instance” evangelize a homosexual Hindu? From their relative position what are you offering.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you “fer instance” evangelize a homosexual Hindu? From their relative position what are you offering.

The same way I would evangelize a non-homosexual Hindu. I would start with natural law, logic, reason and proceed from there.

 

[jonfawkes]

The same way I would evangelize a non-homosexual Hindu. I would start with natural law, logic, reason and proceed from there.

What is the sell? They already have a god(s) and it’s ok to be gay. What are you offering?

 

[PRmerger]

What is the sell? They already have a god(s) and it’s ok to be gay. What are you offering?

This is like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Why would anyone tell him he’s naked? He thinks he’s happy. He thinks he’s ok.

If you don’t go up and tell him the truth they you’re in the same category as all the rest of the townsfolks who know he’s walking around naked but don’t care to share the truth with him.

 

[jonfawkes]

This is like the Emperor’s New Clothes. Why would anyone tell him he’s naked? He thinks he’s happy. He thinks he’s ok.

If you don’t go up and tell him the truth they you’re in the same category as all the rest of the townsfolks who know he’s walking around naked but don’t care to share the truth with him.

He’s living a moral (from his perspective) life. What is the truth? That he’s a “bad person” and he’s going to hell if he doesn’t switch teams?

 

[PRmerger]

He’s living a moral (from his perspective) life. What is the truth? That he’s a “bad person” and he’s going to hell if he doesn’t switch teams?

He has no clothes!

 

[jonfawkes]

He has no clothes!

His holy books and worship predate yours, they also teach a message of love. Hinduism doesn’t condemn him for what he is. How could you convince someone that you are telling “the truth.”