O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
What do you think will be the answer?
- Status
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Well, two gay Buddhists might not know anything about Catholic teaching or even Christian teaching on this matter, so how could it be a sin for them in that case?
Last edited:
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
Can’t you justify things like the Aztec human sacrifices with that?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
moral relativism is a poison in this society and in many protestant churches. People who say that the truth can change do not understand what truth really is. Truth cannot contradict truth, or else we are not dealing with truth but merely personal preference.
A
Ann1
Guest
Who wants to do that?
Someone who has been wounded years ago and not trusting of regular relationships.
Someone who is looking for love in all the wrong places.
Someone who is lost and doesn’t know how to be found
Someone drowning in sin
Someone who has been wounded years ago and not trusting of regular relationships.
Someone who is looking for love in all the wrong places.
Someone who is lost and doesn’t know how to be found
Someone drowning in sin
A
Alex337
Guest
But you seem fine with it in other threads. After all, if slavery is fine according to you under certain circumstances then so is this.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Of course, people might think that something is true when it isn’t demonstrably true at all. People, might, for example, believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman. But how could they prove this to a Muslim who believes that marriage can be between one man and four women? You can’t very well appeal to your Scripture since a Muslim wouldn’t acknowledge that your scripture is better than his scripture. And the Old Testament is full of stories of patriarchs who practiced polygamy.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Actually you are wrong. I find slavery is wrong, if you ever bothered to read the ends of that thread you would know that is not a simple topic. You cannot apply modern American sensibilities to people who lived in ancient Roman society. Again, history must be judged in context. Things that may be offense or immoral to us today (in the context of modern, democratic society) were not necessarily offensive or immoral to people who lives in past ages.
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
The behavior of the Old Testament figures usually bear many flaws. I don’t know how Muslims relate into this though.
O
OsculeturMeOsculo
Guest
The rules of Leviticus do come to mind sometimes when I hear about changes in morality.
A
Alex337
Guest
Your argument looked very much like “slavery is wrong except when it’s not due to extenuating circumstances”. So, things are relative to culture at the time.Alex337:
Actually you are wrong. I find slavery is wrong, if you ever bothered to read the ends of that thread you would know that is not a simple topic. You cannot apply modern American sensibilities to people who lived in ancient Roman society. Again, history must be judged in context. Things that may be offense or immoral to us today (in the context of modern, democratic society) were not necessarily offensive or immoral to people who lives in past ages.
Last edited:
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
And you find this with marriage? I find marriage which was created by God to be beautiful and true. A union between husband and wife where both form a loving bond and create children who they nurture, care for, and help thrive is something that cannot be denied, as right and true, ever. Both a father and a mother help to form the life of a child in their earlier years, where they are set and prepared to face the world. Both husband and wife become best friends and one flesh who get to live their lives together, knowing each other, loving each other, living their lives for each other, and for God.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
Again, you cannot apply modern American sensibilities to people who lived in ancient Roman society. As I explained, most slaves were basically prisoners of war. Modern Americans do not keep POWs to do chores around their homes. But ancient Roman aristocrats did. During war time, if a POW in a POW camp refused to obey orders, it would not be so unreasonable to inflict some kind of physical punishment on him. And, in Roman times, the same sort of punishment might be dealt to an unruly child by his parents or to an unruly student by his teacher or tutor. We do not do such things in modern American society. But, about 80 to 100 years ago, we did. In the 1930’s, children were frequently hit with a ruler or a yard stick by the nuns who taught him in Catholic school. If a teacher did this to a child today, she’d probably be arrested for child abuse; but, in the 1930’s, it was expected and an accepted part of life. The same applies to how slaves were managed in the ancient world. All Augustine is saying is that it is not immoral or sinful for a master to discipline his slaves. And this was because failing to do so might very well result in violent revolution and escaped slaves wandering the neighborhood as armed bandits, etc. So, it was necessary to keep a rebellious or disobedient slave in check. If this was not done, and if unruly slaves overthrew their masters, then the Roman army would come in and crucify everybody…and that would obviously be a nasty situation. Thus, Augustine was merely advocating order in society and the avoidance of societal chaos He was not a modern American, and did not possess a modern American’s understanding of “freedom” or “civil rights.” Such concepts did not exist yet. So, Augustine must be understood in historical context. The problem with many modern people (especially political liberals) is that they have no understanding of history (especially ancient history) and think that modern sensibilities always applied in all times and time periods. This is why people was to eliminate great works of literature like Huckleberry Finn (because the word “nigger” appears in it) and why they’re tearing down statues of Confederate war heroes in the southern USA (because these guys owned slaves). But, again, history must be judged in context. Things that may be offense or immoral to us today (in the context of modern, democratic society) were not necessarily offensive or immoral to people who lives in past ages.
I do not think slavery is right and this is not a thread about slavery. What I think is right is to judge history with context, and the people who are a part of history we must also keep in mind do not hold the sensibilities of the modern world.
A
Alex337
Guest
I find the same is true for those same sex couples I knowThorolfr:
And you find this with marriage? I find marriage which was created by God to be beautiful and true. A union between husband and wife where both form a loving bond and create children who they nurture, care for, and help thrive is something that cannot be denied, as right and true, ever. Both a father and a mother help to form the life of a child in their earlier years, where they are set and prepared to face the world. Both husband and wife become best friends and one flesh who get to live their lives together, knowing each other, loving each other, living their lives for each other, and for God.
it’s really quite beautiful.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
They do not create their own children so no, the same is not trueI know
A
Alex337
Guest
And again, you are arguing that morality is relative to the society and time it is in. I’m which case; the majority of people in my country see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
A
Alex337
Guest
Neither did either of my grandparents, so what?Alex337:
They do not create their own children so no, the same is not trueI know
T
Thorolfr
Guest
My partner and I do this, too. We’re best friends, know each other, love each other and have been together for 20 years. And we’ve gone to a Lutheran church together as a couple.
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
No, I’m saying that the way people dealt with problems are different in every age (some ways are better then others as we see).
Like do you honestly understand how humans work? Can we not learn from our mistakes Centuries ago people did what they thought was right to slaves (yet many did voice disapproval of the slave system), but as time went on people realized that we are all equal and then the slave system began to crumble. Your idea of moral relativism seems to abrogate historical context. As you can see we have bettered ourselves over time and you see it fit to say that is moral relativism. Why can’t humans do what is best, without the idea of truth being relative? Why can’t we see the historical side of humanity and understand that people get better?
With all my time trying to tell you why people thought these things were right, you constantly badger me and say I am speaking morally relative. Well guess what, I wasn’t. Trying to explain an ancient form of understanding through CONTEXT and how it played in society and how they justified it, and trying to make you see THE REASONS why they thought this way and how THEY justified it.
If someone doesn’t have a sense of historical context --that is, if they insist on viewing past events solely by the standards that we value today (the standards of modern, democratic society), it’s impossible for them to understand history authentically and they are going to end up demonizing good men who lived in the past for things they were not responsible for.
cont’d
P
PetraG
Guest
Not ordered in accord to its normal or intended function.
(Remembering that “normal” means according to a norm or a standard, rather than meaning typical, unremarkable, within ‘x’ standard deviations of the median, et cetera…)
The friendships between partners in a homosexual relationship may be normal, the mutual care may be normal and even sustaining, there can be all sorts of things about the relationships that are healthy and normal. It is the sexual actions that are disordered and that are the problem; the other normal or even praiseworthy aspects of the relationships do not make the disordered part morally permissible.
For instance, if a man had a relationship with his sister that was mutually supportive, the best friendship in the world, couldn’t ask for better neighbors, and they never had children, a sexual relationship between them would still be a disordered relationship. It is nothing against them as persons, but that would not be OK.
Last edited:
- Status