Relativism - What is it?

[mschrank]

SoCal, I honestly don’t know what you’re on about. Either you’re being purposefully obtuse or you’re trying to get at some subtelty which is 95% in agreement with what I’m saying.

One question though, why do you say killing a zygote is not always murder?

Also you never got back to me about the morality of fighting back at the Battle of Tours.

 

[ilovekittens]

If it comes from God who is absolute truth, then it must be absolute and not relativism.

The only thing God Himself said is “thou shall not kill.” I don’t remember any fine print in the 10 commandments, specifying when intentionally killing people is actually OK. I think the Church’s teaching - or, at least, some people’s interpretation of what the Church says - is moral relativism.

 

[mschrank]

The only thing God Himself said is “thou shall not kill.” I don’t remember any fine print in the 10 commandments, specifying when intentionally killing people is actually OK. I think the Church’s teaching - or, at least, some people’s interpretation of what the Church says - is moral relativism.

ugh. no he didn’t for heaven’s sake get out a freaking interlinear bible.

What about that whole Amelekites thing?

 

[ilovekittens]

No, you are mistaken in your view of the Church’s position.

Murder – unlawful or unjust killing of a human being is always wrong. But self-defense (individual or collective) is not, and depending on the circumstances, one may be compelled to use deadly force in the defense of one’s own life, or that of others.

Jesus told us if someone slaps us on one cheek, turn the other. He did not say, “If someone rapes and kills your wife, stand by and watch while he does the same to your daughter.”

My only point is that if it is morally acceptable to intentionally kill people in some situations - war, etc - then the moral law “do not kill” is not absolute. Simple.

 

[vern_humphrey]

SoCal, I honestly don’t know what you’re on about. Either you’re being purposefully obtuse or you’re trying to get at some subtelty which is 95% in agreement with what I’m saying.

By George, I think you’ve broken the code.

One question though, why do you say killing a zygote is not always murder?

I’m anxious to see the answer to that one, too.

 

[vern_humphrey]

My only point is that if it is morally acceptable to intentionally kill people in some situations - war, etc - then the moral law “do not kill” is not absolute. Simple.

The moral law, “do not murder” is absolute – and that’s how it was written in Hebrew.

 

[ilovekittens]

Actually, we are absolute. Intentionally killing is always immoral, even for seemingly moral ends (ex. abortion to save the life of the mother). What the Catechism basically says is that unwanted and/or unintentinal killing can sometimes be licit.

The conditions are actually very restrictive if fully applied. And some are held to currently be almost theoretical only. For example, this is the Church’s official stance on the death penalty and it is our current Pope’s stance on ‘just war’.

Loosening and broadening these conditions would be an example of what Pope Benedict refers to as “moral relativism”.

This is good, and I agree.

 

[ilovekittens]

The moral law, “do not murder” is absolute – and that’s how it was written in Hebrew.

OK, fine, so “do not intentionally kill people” is not a moral law, per Vern Humphrey.

 

[mschrank]

My only point is that if it is morally acceptable to intentionally kill people in some situations - war, etc - then the moral law “do not kill” is not absolute. Simple.

Absolutely correct.

Except there is no moral law called “do not kill”.

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK, fine, so “do not intentionally kill people” is not a moral law, per Vern Humphrey.

When you have to make nasty and personal remarks like this, it’s a sign your argument is weak.

The original Hebrew is translated as “Do not murder.” Do you deny that?

Do you deny that God commanded the Hebrews to kill – sometimes to wipe out whole populations?

 

[ilovekittens]

When you have to make nasty and personal remarks like this, it’s a sign your argument is weak.

The original Hebrew is translated as “Do not murder.” Do you deny that?

Do you deny that God commanded the Hebrews to kill – sometimes to wipe out whole populations?

I don’t read Hebrew, and Old Testament history just obscures the issue. My point, to repeat, is, if morality is absolute, then “do not kill” means “do not kill.” Your point is that “do not kill” is not an absolute, moral law, but that a certain kind of killing in a certain situation is wrong (“murder”). That’s fine, if that’s your morality, but I think it is a relativistic position, in that the moral correctness of the act (killing) is determined by circumstance, rather than by a simple, universal truth.

 

[buffalo]

OK, fine, so “do not intentionally kill people” is not a moral law, per Vern Humphrey.

Vern is correct.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t read Hebrew, and Old Testament history just obscures the issue.

So the only authoritative exegesis is your opinion?

My point, to repeat, is, if morality is absolute, then “do not kill” means “do not kill.”

But the Bible does not say “do not kill.” The original Hebrew says “do not murder.”

Your point is that “do not kill” is not an absolute, moral law, but that a certain kind of killing in a certain situation is wrong (“murder”).

No, my point is that “do not kill” is not biblical.

The text should be translated as “do not murder.”

That’s fine, if that’s your morality, but I think it is a relativistic position, in that the moral correctness of the act (killing) is determined by circumstance, rather than by a simple, universal truth.

You think wrong. You are trying to impose your view on both Scripture and the Church.

 

[ilovekittens]

So the only authoritative exegesis is your opinion?

But the Bible does not say “do not kill.” The original Hebrew says “do not murder.”

No, my point is that “do not kill” is not biblical.

The text should be translated as “do not murder.”

You think wrong. You are trying to impose your view on both Scripture and the Church.

How am I wrong? You say that only certain kinds of killing are wrong (“murder”), which means that you determine the morality of the act by the circumstance in which it is committed. That is relativism, not absolutism. This isn’t my view; this is the definition of the term. How am I wrong?

 

[vern_humphrey]

How am I wrong?

Let me give some examples:

Originally Posted by ilovekittens
I don’t read Hebrew, and Old Testament history just obscures the issue.

Originally Posted by ilovekittens
My point, to repeat, is, if morality is absolute, then “do not kill” means “do not kill.”

And since the Scripture doesn’t say “do not kill” you are not only wrong here, but also irrelevant.

You say that only certain kinds of killing are wrong (“murder”),

I don’t say it – the Bible says it. And the Church agrees – as volunminous posts and quotes from the Catechism on this very thread have shown.

which means that you determine the morality of the act by the circumstance in which it is committed.

No. God does that.

That is relativism, not absolutism. This isn’t my view; this is the definition of the term. How am I wrong?

By assuming the Bible says “do not kill.” The Bible says “do not murder.” It is murder that is absolutely wrong, not killing, per se.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.