C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Ohhhhhhhhh,… that is just TOO good!
<guffaw, guffaw, guffaw, choke, gasp, cough, “sheesh”, chuckle, etc>
Oh, goodness…
Perfect summation.
- Status
<guffaw, guffaw, guffaw, choke, gasp, cough, “sheesh”, chuckle, etc>
Oh, goodness…
Perfect summation.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
“Evil is just somebody else’s good.”
R
rossum
Guest
Actions bring consequences. The consequences are modified by the motivation behind the action. All your actions bring the appropriate consequences. The concept of “allowed” does not apply. Gravity does not “allow” or “disallow” jumping off a tall building without a parachute, it just tells you of the consequences of such an action.
Buddhist morality has a different basis to Christian morality. There is neither sin nor the forgiveness of sin. Actions have consequences, and the consequences are unavoidable. There is no “Get out of Hell free” card in Buddhism.
rossum
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Did you have a “signature”, at some point, which read something like, “There are no dogmas, only consequences!”?
So, a buddhist WOULD not be “ostracized” by his fellow buddhists for killing and eating a “smaller” fellow human being?
I agree with you that God would indeed have some “interesting” rewards for someone who did that, but is a buddhist so “socially isolated” that he’d treat a fellow buddhist who did this deed just as he would treat any other human being?
Would you simply leave the “consequences” of this act to be applied by “karma”, or would there be “social consequences” as well?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
There is no “Get out of Hell” at ALL for the Christian, if he chooses not-God over God!
My problem with “buddhist morality” is that it is perfectly acceptable for a buddhist to “sit quietly taking no action” while evil happens, as it will be “repaid by karmic means”, when they could act to prevent the evil from happening.
Do most, if any, buddhists actually behave that way? I don’t know, and I rather doubt it because humans are simply not created to be that way, but it WOULD BE an acceptable (not sinful, not wrong) way to behave according to buddhist principles.
R
rossum
Guest
Buddhist morality also included compassion; this can and does spur Buddhists into action. Charity is also one of the Buddhist virtues, it is the first of the Six Perfections.
Would you say that Christian morality has a problem with people standing around doing nothing because all evil deeds wil be repaid by God? Your same argument applies in the Christian case.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I follow a set of principles that work for my lifetime here and now. I make no claim about those principles being eternal because I have no proof or knowledge that they are so.
I have already explained the thinking behind my sig.
No, I am saying that it is a moral rule that works here and now. I make no claims for its ultimacy.
There may be some ultimate truths. I have difficulty with finding an reliable method to determine which are ultimate truths and which are non-ultimate truths. Without a method to tell one from the other I cannot be certain which is which. There is also the problem of expressing an ultimate truth in a non-ultimate human language.
rossum
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I realize that the VAST majority of buddhists have a “typical/operational” morality very similar to Christians, as do most people the world over, due to the influence of natural law and “leakage” of the morality of “God’s People”.
The problem is that their is no “base” within buddhism to objectively claim that doing that virtue is anything but a relativistic good, instead of the objectively absolute good that it is.
You are precisely correct! That’s the sin of presumption. That’s why standing around PRESUMING that God will repay evil deeds instead of actively fighting evil is a mortal sin.
Can buddhism make the same statement? Is it actually a condemned behavior to “stand around allowing evil to happen”?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
So buddhism is utterly relativistic, and based on nothing real, because “the real” is ultimately objectively true and valid eternally.
If there is no truth, nothing truly “real”, them people can justify anything they do. That is the great evil of relativism.
You have no method to determine “ultimate truth” because you won’t use the one (and I do mean singular ONE) provided, due to cultural and personal bias.
We’ll have to agree to disagree that that one method (comparison with the Church) is what it says it is.
That there are those who choose to create baseless moral/ethical systems is fully expected by the Church, which is why there IS Christian evangelization (spreading the “good news” that a firm base is available), and as long as those who refuse to use it, or are utterly ignorant of it, are capable and willing to listen to natural law, no one is utterly doomed to hell necessarily.
Therefore, the buddhist who is a good “listener” to natural law is most likely more advantaged than many (certainly more so than “bad listeners” who claim to be Christians) in choosing God, and being allowed heaven.
R
rossum
Guest
“Condemmned” is the wrong word, as is “evil” as a noun. It could certainly be unskilful behaviour to allow evil (adjective) actions to happens, depending on the circumstances. We are not all completely free to act in all circumstances. We can have limited effects on the actions of our governemnts for example.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
I fail to see why you are insisting on a universally valid morality. The inhabitants of planet Zog may well be debating the morality of Forglesnipping. That is of no interest to me because I do not have enough tentacles to Forglesnip even if I wanted to. A universal morality is vastly overspecified for my needs. There is also the problem of how to determine the universal, true, valid and eternal answer to the Forglesnipping problem.
There is, it is just the reified TRUTH[sup]TM[/sup] that I have an issue with.
So I should follow the untimate truth written in the Book of Mormon? The Bhagavad Gita? How do I determine which of the many methods that are offered is the correct method and not a counterfeit method? What meta-method do I use to pick the correct method? (Yes, I am hinting at an infinite regress here.)
We do indeed disagree here. More than one organisation claims to have the correct method; not all such claims are correct. For absolute truth I need absolute certainty. If I only have a relative certainty, then the resulting truth can never be more than relative.
rossum
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
OK.
Actually, since only God is allowed to allow persons to condemn themselves, “condemn” is even wrong for us Catholics!So, we’d say that it’s “unskilled behavior” too, if we were “skill oriented”, which we’re not, so we’d ACTUALLY say it is “not charitable behavior”, being more concerned with “love” than “skill” as we are.
The whole “salvation by works” problem that buddhism presents is the major “sticking point” which veritably prohibits us from allowing any “experimentation” with buddhism.
Well, that and the whole ultra-relativist orientation of buddhism. (To bring us back to the OP intention of this thread.
)
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Since we’re assuming that Zoggians (Zogites, Zoggers?) are persons, and are thus descendants of Adam and Eve somehow or other, they must needs follow the same rules as the rest of us persons.
What is Forglesnipping? We can’t very well pronounce as to it’s morality without knowing what it is, so if you’d kindly be explicit as to what it is, we can see how it rates on the morality scale.
Please tellus what it is then?
What IS the forglesnipping problem?
If you’ll kindly just say what it is, I’ll happily show you how to determine it’s moral value. Give it a try!
A universal morality is “overspecified” for your needs because it just might prohibit you from doing something you’d rather not be prohibited from doing!
You’d much rather not have to present your possibly prohibited behavior to anyone but yourself for a ruling on it’s moral/ethical value, and that is your “attachment” to sin which most probably will be purgated from you. At least I hope so, as the alternative is for you to cling to that particular sin forever in hell.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
I wouldn’t suggest those two, no.
You may use any method you like. And any meta-method you like! And any meta-meta-method you like, ad infinitum.
The method I would suggest is to simply choose the actual “ultimate truth” as suggested by God.
What you suggest is that there IS no sense whatsoever in choosing one “ultimate truth” over another because, not only IS there no “ultimate truth”, but that there is no way to distinguish which non-existent “ultimate truth” is a better choice (that last bit being a rather humorous thing to say, actually).
The mind who chooses to not choose because it wants simply to do as it wants is a mind which will in fact get exactly what it wants, instead of either what it needs or what it could have from the Father for the asking.
But, that’s an utterly meaningless statement to the relativistic mind.
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
That’s true. Due to your relativism all things are relative to you, and no truth to you is anything more than a relativistic “pro’s and con’s” proposition.
You CAN have absolute certainty of truths if you really wanted them, which you don’t, as evinced by your clinging to your sin of relativism when it needn’t be clung to, primarily because you want the “wiggle-room” to do as you see fit without constraint by some “moralist”.
The way to get that absolute certainty is absolute belief in the Church as the vehicle of truth from God, which you then very critically constantly submit every question of faith and morals to to test whether the Church is what it says it is, or not.
Only in that way can you get an ongoing absolute certainty in the morality of human actions.
5
55442andy
Guest
D
Dtmccameron
Guest
This is a trend that is prevalent on this forum: people pejoratively apply the label ‘relativist’ to people that aren’t really relativists at all, they’re just people that you disagree with. I’ve met very few relativists in my life. I’d be hard-pressed to think of more than one atheist I know is a relativist. Most simply think differently than you.
Benedictus
I at first, Sir, bore this message with a certain degree of grim detest, but, coming to the end, I say that I do in fact agree with you!
For as has been stated with the examples of rape and robbery, there are very few who would respect another persons interpretation of morality when it conflicted with their own, especially when it worked to their own detriment.
“rejection by who? the state? perfectly aligning civil law with Catholic morality would be a total disaster for both the state and the church. write a law banning all forms of homosexual behavior. now try to enforce it. you would have an outrageous invasion of personal rights by the police where the cure would be much worse than the disease.”
I argue first, that Catholic morality and teachings are in my view and experience, perfect to the most insignificant article, and further, say, for arguments sake, that the cure is never worse than the disease. If it were, it would not be considered a cure. Now, we can amputate that gangreenous leg of yours, of leave it on and you die. The choice is yours. (Which isn’t saying the homosexual, ah, community ought be ‘amputated’.)
“what you condemn as moral relativism is, in many cases, compromise inherent in any state that doesn’t invest the church with plenary authority over everything.”
And thus I blame moral relitivism as the sole cause of the sad state of the world today.
“even a casual reading of threads on this forum (“is it a sin to …”) wherein every aspect of human activity becomes a candidate for criminalization I mean condemnation shows what would happen if some degree of “moral relativism” were not necessary.”
Wirraway
“Individuals, not the state. I agree that state laws need to show relativism, because not everyone obeys the moral law in the first place. The state becomes relative only after the majority of its citizens become relative.”
Veritas248
I disagree, in the Laws established by a state, there must be absolutes. The Laws must be based in Absolute Truth, and absolute morality. Otherwise, crime, in any of its forms, would be entirely unrepresable (and I’m quite sure that’s not a word). Any Law not based in Aboslute Truth, nor adhearing to and absolute morality are corrupt laws, and are to be torn down and burned.
And the people are just as guilty for the crimes commited under corrupt laws (crimes then presented as ‘legal activities’) for not tearing down the wicked institutions as the evil men who participate in them.
"Something can be objective without being ultimate. All I need is a morality that works for the duration of my current lifetime. I am not interested in any different moralities that might have existed before I was born or that might exist after I am dead; those moralities are of no practical use to me. All I need is a morality that works here and now.
rossum"
Surely the morality that applies for YOU, HERE and NOW, would not necessarily apply to ME or THEM over THERE. What then, is to stop THEIR morality, which is, to be generous, lacking, from leading them to do wicked acts over HERE?
Morality is eternal, and unchanging.
“All beings” means exactly that, it includes the lion himself. By starving himself to death he would injure himself. As a rule of thumb, if you have to kill something to avoid starvation then the smaller the victim the better.
rossum
If anything is relative, then it most certainly is SIZE.
We are not all completely free to act in all circumstances. We can have limited effects on the actions of our governemnts for example.
rossum
Yet again, I disagree, saying that a person at any time has complete liberty to do what they will. It’s just like you say, though, ‘There will be consequences.’
For instance, there is nothing save the Grace of God that prevents me from grabbing a knife and stabbing my sleeping family to death in their beds. But, should I do such a thing, and utilize the freedom of will and action, I would face the consequences. Eventually, I’d die and go to hell, and thanks-be-to-God, some bit of morality remains in this nation and I would, more likely than not, be tracked down by men who believe that taking life is evil.
Well, with that pleasent thought, I bid you all good evening, for it is late, my head throbs, and I’ve just asked myself, “Where am I?” Sorry if I got anything wrong…Seems to me like I ought have a disclaimer in my sig, “The views expressed in the above message are in no way affiliated with the Catholic Curch…”
Benedictus
I at first, Sir, bore this message with a certain degree of grim detest, but, coming to the end, I say that I do in fact agree with you!
For as has been stated with the examples of rape and robbery, there are very few who would respect another persons interpretation of morality when it conflicted with their own, especially when it worked to their own detriment.
“rejection by who? the state? perfectly aligning civil law with Catholic morality would be a total disaster for both the state and the church. write a law banning all forms of homosexual behavior. now try to enforce it. you would have an outrageous invasion of personal rights by the police where the cure would be much worse than the disease.”
I argue first, that Catholic morality and teachings are in my view and experience, perfect to the most insignificant article, and further, say, for arguments sake, that the cure is never worse than the disease. If it were, it would not be considered a cure. Now, we can amputate that gangreenous leg of yours, of leave it on and you die. The choice is yours. (Which isn’t saying the homosexual, ah, community ought be ‘amputated’.)
“what you condemn as moral relativism is, in many cases, compromise inherent in any state that doesn’t invest the church with plenary authority over everything.”
And thus I blame moral relitivism as the sole cause of the sad state of the world today.
“even a casual reading of threads on this forum (“is it a sin to …”) wherein every aspect of human activity becomes a candidate for criminalization I mean condemnation shows what would happen if some degree of “moral relativism” were not necessary.”
Wirraway
“Individuals, not the state. I agree that state laws need to show relativism, because not everyone obeys the moral law in the first place. The state becomes relative only after the majority of its citizens become relative.”
Veritas248
I disagree, in the Laws established by a state, there must be absolutes. The Laws must be based in Absolute Truth, and absolute morality. Otherwise, crime, in any of its forms, would be entirely unrepresable (and I’m quite sure that’s not a word). Any Law not based in Aboslute Truth, nor adhearing to and absolute morality are corrupt laws, and are to be torn down and burned.
And the people are just as guilty for the crimes commited under corrupt laws (crimes then presented as ‘legal activities’) for not tearing down the wicked institutions as the evil men who participate in them.
"Something can be objective without being ultimate. All I need is a morality that works for the duration of my current lifetime. I am not interested in any different moralities that might have existed before I was born or that might exist after I am dead; those moralities are of no practical use to me. All I need is a morality that works here and now.
rossum"
Surely the morality that applies for YOU, HERE and NOW, would not necessarily apply to ME or THEM over THERE. What then, is to stop THEIR morality, which is, to be generous, lacking, from leading them to do wicked acts over HERE?
Morality is eternal, and unchanging.
“All beings” means exactly that, it includes the lion himself. By starving himself to death he would injure himself. As a rule of thumb, if you have to kill something to avoid starvation then the smaller the victim the better.
rossum
If anything is relative, then it most certainly is SIZE.
We are not all completely free to act in all circumstances. We can have limited effects on the actions of our governemnts for example.
rossum
Yet again, I disagree, saying that a person at any time has complete liberty to do what they will. It’s just like you say, though, ‘There will be consequences.’
For instance, there is nothing save the Grace of God that prevents me from grabbing a knife and stabbing my sleeping family to death in their beds. But, should I do such a thing, and utilize the freedom of will and action, I would face the consequences. Eventually, I’d die and go to hell, and thanks-be-to-God, some bit of morality remains in this nation and I would, more likely than not, be tracked down by men who believe that taking life is evil.
Well, with that pleasent thought, I bid you all good evening, for it is late, my head throbs, and I’ve just asked myself, “Where am I?” Sorry if I got anything wrong…Seems to me like I ought have a disclaimer in my sig, “The views expressed in the above message are in no way affiliated with the Catholic Curch…”
W
WindyHair
Guest
deep down, everyone’s beliefs are relative whether they want to admit it or not.
people who scream the loudest about their strict morality
are usually the biggest liars (eg. certain priests, preachers,
and conservative talk show hosts).
“the heart is most deceitful above all” is it not?
people who claim absolute morality have never really been tested.
cuz when it comes down to your survival, i think you will find
that you will do what’s necessary.
people who scream the loudest about their strict morality
are usually the biggest liars (eg. certain priests, preachers,
and conservative talk show hosts).
“the heart is most deceitful above all” is it not?
people who claim absolute morality have never really been tested.
cuz when it comes down to your survival, i think you will find
that you will do what’s necessary.
S
stbruno
Guest
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080416_response-bishops_en.html
When the Pope visited the US in April, these were responses to the questions posed by the bishops to him. Relativism was just one of the questions he answered.
The problem of relativism, is everything is grey…there is no absolute truth. And that’s the real problem. Jesus said, I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the light. So there is a real black and a real white…not grey that our society purports is the correct and only way to look at things. If there is only grey, than we would all be sociopaths…and that’s not the world I want to live in or can survive in.
When the Pope visited the US in April, these were responses to the questions posed by the bishops to him. Relativism was just one of the questions he answered.
The problem of relativism, is everything is grey…there is no absolute truth. And that’s the real problem. Jesus said, I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the light. So there is a real black and a real white…not grey that our society purports is the correct and only way to look at things. If there is only grey, than we would all be sociopaths…and that’s not the world I want to live in or can survive in.
L
Lisa44
Guest
Many excellent posts! Thanks for the link St. Bruno.
Windyhair- your post is another prime example of relativism. Hopefully someone more qualified than myself will challenge you.
Windyhair- your post is another prime example of relativism. Hopefully someone more qualified than myself will challenge you.
- Status