Relativism

[CatsAndDogs]

Hi Charlemagne,

Homosexuality the world over is viewed as an intrinsically wrong act? Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of gay people and supporters of their lifestyles.

No one CARES if acting on one’s same-sex-attraction-proclivities (aka: Homosexual behavior) is VIEWED AS whatever it is viewed as!

Those behaviors produce evil within human society. Where does one’s opinions come into play in that?

But then, we agree on this, don’t we?

 

[Lisa44]

I would say that the ONLY way we know right from wrong, is BECAUSE of God’s revelation to us.

Then how, before Moses, did anyone know what was right and what was wrong?

They didn’t.

Throughout the history of the world societies have tolerated homosexuality. We should not confuse their toleration with their supposed approval. After all, in this country most people tolerate abortion, yet most people do not approve of it. That is to say, they don’t think it’s really right to kill children. Likewise, most people don’t think that nature’s law is that men should marry men and women should marry women. As a matter of fact, in the modern era we have outdone the ancient Roman and the Greeks in approaching the tolerance of such unions.

I’m sorry, I’m not explaining myself well. I mean, tell that to the homosexual person. The person, who has chosen a life with a same sex partner does NOT believe they are sinning. They believe that it is their right and their choice. (I’m not speaking of those who ‘tolerate’ it, I’m speaking of individuals who do not feel or think that it is wrong.)
Likewise, many people think that a baby is simply an “embryo” at a certain stage and therefore, no different from birth control. Which they also think is not only acceptable but wise given their perception that the world is overpopulated.

Haven’t you met any of the “the world is overpopulated” types? I know many many people who believe that birth control is the only sane thing to do, and that abortion at an early stage is the same as birth control.

Bla…bla…bla…
In other words, these people do not have written on their hearts that homosexual lifestyles, or birthcontrol, or abortion is evil, but is good and right.

 

[Lisa44]

Surely you all know that there are numerous cultures on this earth who believed in ritual sacrifice of humans, children especially, to the Gods…etc…

Why would you say that in all times and all places all humans had the same set of ethics? Its simply not so.

The ethics we are dealing with as Christians came from our revelations from God. If God didn’t reveal it to us we wouldnt know it either.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Surely you all know that there are numerous cultures on this earth who believed in ritual sacrifice of humans, children especially, to the Gods…etc…

Why would you say that in all times and all places all humans had the same set of ethics? Its simply not so.

The ethics we are dealing with as Christians came from our revelations from God. If God didn’t reveal it to us we wouldnt know it either.

Natural law has always been “with us”, and if listened to prohibits such evils as you describe.

Natural law is another form of revelation (from God) which all mankind possesses.

But, it is just as likely as explicit public revelation to be denied by individuals, if some evil promotes what they want.

All mankind has an built in set of ethics and morals, which are perfectly capable of gaining one salvation (by surprise!) if adequately listened to. That “set” is natural law.

The fact that it’s so easy to simply disregard natural law is why direct divine public revelation is necessary, and why we’ve been given it.

 

[fix]

Surely you all know that there are numerous cultures on this earth who believed in ritual sacrifice of humans, children especially, to the Gods…etc…

Why would you say that in all times and all places all humans had the same set of ethics? Its simply not so.

The ethics we are dealing with as Christians came from our revelations from God. If God didn’t reveal it to us we wouldnt know it either.

That is no proof that there is no objective, absolute moral truth. It just proves some people are confused.

 

[Lisa44]

That is no proof that there is no objective, absolute moral truth. It just proves some people are confused.

I didn’t say there was no objective moral truth??? To the contrary, I said that there was objective moral truth that was revealed first to the Jews and then from Jesus. I argued that outside of that revelation there was no objective moral truth because God had not revealed it.

 

[Lisa44]

Natural law has always been “with us”, and if listened to prohibits such evils as you describe.

Natural law is another form of revelation (from God) which all mankind possesses.

But, it is just as likely as explicit public revelation to be denied by individuals, if some evil promotes what they want.

All mankind has an built in set of ethics and morals, which are perfectly capable of gaining one salvation (by surprise!) if adequately listened to. That “set” is natural law.

The fact that it’s so easy to simply disregard natural law is why direct divine public revelation is necessary, and why we’ve been given it.

Just out of curiosity, is ‘natural law’ a Catholic concept or a philosophical concept?
I read the definition on Catholic Encyclopedia, but I didn’t find it in my Catechism.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Just out of curiosity, is ‘natural law’ a Catholic concept or a philosophical concept?
I read the definition on Catholic Encyclopedia, but I didn’t find it in my Catechism.

I think Aristotle was somewhat onto it, as my dim memory seems to recall.

But it’s most definately in the CCC.

(( Also, New Advent. ))

Happy reading to 'ya!

 

[fix]

I didn’t say there was no objective moral truth??? To the contrary, I said that there was objective moral truth that was revealed first to the Jews and then from Jesus. I argued that outside of that revelation there was no objective moral truth because God had not revealed it.

I see, but the natural moral law was always written on the human heart. Even before the 10 commandments.

This is from the Catholic Catechism:

**2070 **The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31

**2071 **The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32 We know God’s commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

 

[Lisa44]

I think Aristotle was somewhat onto it, as my dim memory seems to recall.

But it’s most definately in the CCC.

(( Also, New Advent. ))

Happy reading to 'ya!

Thank you, I didn’t know about the CCC.
Natural law is explained as reason, and do good not evil. But then it sites the example “dont commit adultry”. (new advent)

Well, what is adultry? Does marriage include polygamy or polyandry? If it doesn’t, then how do diverse cultures fit into the theory?

Then there is promiscuity, and the cultures who practice it and even enamour it as a lifestyle.

I think ‘good’ and ‘evil’ differ greatly. Sure you could say, well those people just ignore their “reason” (those who act outside of NL). But to me thats a weak explanation.

Also, why would God reveal himself if we were all imprinted with the same knowledge? Why did he reveal himself to the Jews and not the Egyptians (who were a corrupt adulterous nation) if as this theory states, everywhere everywhere had the same notions of good and evil?

I think one could argue against this Natural Law. But if thats going to be me I’ll have to do some reading.

Thanks for the links.

Tibetans practice polyandry and its an ancient tradition. I highly doubt they ever thought it was wrong. In fact, it made sense to them and worked for them so they did it that way for a very long time.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Thank you, I didn’t know about the CCC.
Natural law is explained as reason, and do good not evil. But then it sites the example “dont commit adultry”. (new advent)

Well, what is adultry? Does marriage include polygamy or polyandry? If it doesn’t, then how do diverse cultures fit into the theory?

Natural law can easily be overridden by “cultural norm”. That merely means that that “cultural norm” is a sin.

No sin is mortal if it is not known to be a sin. It is then only a venial sin. That is why evangelism is important. To correct these sinful “cultural norms” and allow the cultures containing them to become more human and less “demon bound”.

Then there is promiscuity, and the cultures who practice it and even enamour it as a lifestyle.

I think ‘good’ and ‘evil’ differ greatly. Sure you could say, well those people just ignore their “reason” (those who act outside of NL). But to me thats a weak explanation.

No. Relativism says that “good and evil vary greatly”. That is why relativism is an evil.

Also, why would God reveal himself if we were all imprinted with the same knowledge? Why did he reveal himself to the Jews and not the Egyptians (who were a corrupt adulterous nation) if as this theory states, everywhere everywhere had the same notions of good and evil?

There is a difference between public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation is what Israel received. Private revelation is what the Egyptians received.

God has chosen to reveal Himself progressively, and locally (what I like to call “injectionally”). He gives His public revelations to a select few, and instructs them to spread that revelation to the rest of humanity.

I think one could argue against this Natural Law. But if thats going to be me I’ll have to do some reading.

It’s a very easy thing to argue against natural law. It’s very easy to convince people that natural law is utter rubbish.

But that has no effect on natural law being what it is, and being utterly correct. Just like any matter of faith, if a person has nearly ANY concupiscent reason for preferring to want their way over God’s way, their way will WIN!

Hoorah! It’s so SATISFYING to win hell, isn’t it?

Thanks for the links.

Tibetans practice polyandry and its an ancient tradition. I highly doubt they ever thought it was wrong. In fact, it made sense to them and worked for them so they did it that way for a very long time.

And it also kept them from being as human as they could have been all this time that they’d held that sinful practice.

What does “worked for them” mean? Why did it “make sense” to them?

When we get answers to those questions, then we can delve into what “demons” they were being influenced by, and why (and how) it would be a good thing for them to change that “cultural norm”.

 

[Lisa44]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm

That page has the section on ‘natural moral law’

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm#2070

And from the above page:

The Decalogue and the natural law

2070 The Ten Commandments belong to God’s revelation. At the same time they teach us the true humanity of man. They bring to light the essential duties, and therefore, indirectly, the fundamental rights inherent in the nature of the human person. The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law:

From the beginning, God had implanted in the heart of man the precepts of the natural law. Then he was content to remind him of them. This was the Decalogue.31
2071 The commandments of the Decalogue, although accessible to reason alone, have been revealed. To attain a complete and certain understanding of the requirements of the natural law, sinful humanity needed this revelation:

A full explanation of the commandments of the Decalogue became necessary in the state of sin because the light of reason was obscured and the will had gone astray.32
We know God’s commandments through the divine revelation proposed to us in the Church, and through the voice of moral conscience.

I’m not sure how the ten commandments could be accesible by reason alone. (to narrow our topic).

How could reason alone inform someone of the Sabbath?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I’m not sure how the ten commandments could be accesible by reason alone. (to narrow our topic).

How could reason alone inform someone of the Sabbath?

The biggest “sign” in the sky (short of the sun) is the moon.

Half-moons, full-moon, and no-moon (“new”) happen about every 7 days.

Some “wiseguy” decided that 7 days seemed like a reasonable interval to allow some “rather intellectual” people to rest from “normal” work and do “spiritual” stuff. Some of that “stuff” was to explain his “spiritual intellection” to his family (people).

As it is said, “The sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

The point of the sabbath is as a sign of the fact that God created His creation as an orderly thing, which because of it’s orderliness is more a “good home” for us humans, which it wouldn’t be if it were more “random”.

The “four times” per moon cycle (which makes a “cross” by the way) when it’s glaringly obvious that the world is “sensibly ordered” are natural times when nature veritably DRAWS out of us an appreciation of it’s Creator’s great gift!

At some point someone decided that the actual moon-phase was less important than just having a completely predictable 7-day cycle, and shifted this “celebration” into a stable mechanism.

That’s my rationalization, and opinion, and worth absolutely nothing to anyone who thinks it’s worth nothing to them!

 

[Lisa44]

Natural law can easily be overridden by “cultural norm”. That merely means that that “cultural norm” is a sin.

No sin is mortal if it is not known to be a sin. It is then only a venial sin. That is why evangelism is important. To correct these sinful “cultural norms” and allow the cultures containing them to become more human and less “demon bound”.

Ok, so you’re saying its a sin because all humans know deep down that we are supposed to live as one man and one woman in marriage. And they are living in denial of what they know is right in their heart?

“demon bound” - I like that expression. What does it mean?

No. Relativism says that “good and evil vary greatly”. That is why relativism is an evil.

Ok, so in fact, good and evil are unchanging through time, and people who do otherwise (adultery etc) are denying what they know in their heart? And perhaps, you are suggesting that if they don’t know it, then its because they have demons?

There is a difference between public revelation and private revelation. Public revelation is what Israel received. Private revelation is what the Egyptians received.

God has chosen to reveal Himself progressively, and locally (what I like to call “injectionally”). He gives His public revelations to a select few, and instructs them to spread that revelation to the rest of humanity.

So even if the gospel hadn’t reached Tibet, these people should still know inside that polyandry is a sin?

It’s a very easy thing to argue against natural law. It’s very easy to convince people that natural law is utter rubbish.

But that has no effect on natural law being what it is, and being utterly correct. Just like any matter of faith, if a person has nearly ANY concupiscent reason for preferring to want their way over God’s way, their way will WIN!

Hoorah! It’s so SATISFYING to win hell, isn’t it?

I don’t think its easy, per say, to understand NL by reason alone. Even though the Catachism says it is possible. But I’m still chewing on it.

And it also kept them from being as human as they could have been all this time that they’d held that sinful practice.

What does “worked for them” mean? Why did it “make sense” to them?

When we get answers to those questions, then we can delve into what “demons” they were being influenced by, and why (and how) it would be a good thing for them to change that “cultural norm”.

“Worked for them” means they defend it by saying there is little arable land and its a form of population control. So I guess they feel that its a natural outcome of their environment.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Natural law can easily be overridden by “cultural norm”. That merely means that that “cultural norm” is a sin.

No sin is mortal if it is not known to be a sin. It is then only a venial sin. That is why evangelism is important. To correct these sinful “cultural norms” and allow the cultures containing them to become more human and less “demon bound”.

Ok, so you’re saying its a sin because all humans know deep down that we are supposed to live as one man and one woman in marriage. And they are living in denial of what they know is right in their heart?

From their earliest childhood they’ve most likely been told that that sin (whatever it is) is “normal”, and this teaches them to distrust their “ear” which hears the “small voice” of God’s natural law within us.

That is one of the most persuasive reasons (to me, anyway) for considering “sinful cultural norms” to be a much greater problem than they seem to be considered.

Habitual evil-doing makes further and greater evil-doing easier.

“demon bound” - I like that expression. What does it mean?

Demons “latch onto” those personal and cultural norms, which are intimately bound to people by personal want and peer/authority-pressure, and DRAG people around in ways that satisfy the demons doing the dragging!

If the people being dragged about are truly invincibly ignorant of their being dragged around by demons, their sins during “dragging” aren’t mortal, but do create lots of “refuse” to be burned off in purgatory.

I’d rather help them get rid of their demons. I happen to believe that more people are saved by being shown their demons than are saved by their being allowed their invincible ignorance.

(( Jesus most likely wouldn’t have told us to evangelize if there would be a “net loss” on the “salvation tote-board” for our evangelization efforts. ))

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
And it also kept them from being as human as they could have been all this time that they’d held that sinful practice.

What does “worked for them” mean? Why did it “make sense” to them?

When we get answers to those questions, then we can delve into what “demons” they were being influenced by, and why (and how) it would be a good thing for them to change that “cultural norm”.

“Worked for them” means they defend it by saying there is little arable land and its a form of population control. So I guess they feel that its a natural outcome of their environment.

The practice in question is polyandry (multiple “husbands”).

Why do they resist celibacy?

Is there a more “be fruitful and multiply”-oriented way to deal with their physical environment?

What are the negative consequences of “sharing husbands” that demonstrate the “wrongness” of this polyandral habit of theirs?

How does this practice “warp” their society in relation to other non-polyandrical societies?

…just some questions I’d explore with them.

 

[Lisa44]

The biggest “sign” in the sky (short of the sun) is the moon.

Half-moons, full-moon, and no-moon (“new”) happen about every 7 days.

Some “wiseguy” decided that 7 days seemed like a reasonable interval to allow some “rather intellectual” people to rest from “normal” work and do “spiritual” stuff. Some of that “stuff” was to explain his “spiritual intellection” to his family (people).

As it is said, “The sabbath was created for man, not man for the sabbath.” (Mark 2:27)

The point of the sabbath is as a sign of the fact that God created His creation as an orderly thing, which because of it’s orderliness is more a “good home” for us humans, which it wouldn’t be if it were more “random”.

The “four times” per moon cycle (which makes a “cross” by the way) when it’s glaringly obvious that the world is “sensibly ordered” are natural times when nature veritably DRAWS out of us an appreciation of it’s Creator’s great gift!

At some point someone decided that the actual moon-phase was less important than just having a completely predictable 7-day cycle, and shifted this “celebration” into a stable mechanism.

That’s my rationalization, and opinion, and worth absolutely nothing to anyone who thinks it’s worth nothing to them!

Wow, you have an answer for that! Are you saying that seeing the moon’s phases makes people reflect on the order in nature and therefore they take a day off? I don’t follow?

 

[Lisa44]

And…one more question for Cats & Dogs -

If belief in one God is part of NL, then why is it do you think, that so many people and cultures believe in multiple gods(hindus), or, no god (buddhists)?

If belief in one God was written on people’s hearts, why is it not more commonly practiced?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Wow, you have an answer for that! Are you saying that seeing the moon’s phases makes people reflect on the order in nature and therefore they take a day off? I don’t follow?

<Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, chuckle>

Uhm… The “take the day off” part is rather conjectural, but doesn’t a full moon, or the sight of the moon cut perfectly in half by a straight line of light (the half moons) make YOU reflect on the order of nature?

 

[CatsAndDogs]

And…one more question for Cats & Dogs -

If belief in one God is part of NL, then why is it do you think, that so many people and cultures believe in multiple gods(hindus), or, no god (buddhists)?

If belief in one God was written on people’s hearts, why is it not more commonly practiced?

Because of cultural norms.

All people believe in “one God” when they are infants. Then they are trained by their culture to have “multiple gods”, which are aspects of human nature that “resonate” with various forces of nature.

Then, if they think about the silliness of this endless plethora of gods, they can fall into the error of thinking that since ANY god is silly that ALL gods, even God, which they then see as just another “god” (little “g”), are nonexistent.

So, they develop from having God, to having gods, to having no gods, or God, at all.

Sometimes they rediscover the “hole” which only that original, and real, God fills, and fill it with God.

Sometimes they rediscover the “hole” that only God can fill, but try to fill it with “things”, which are some variety of “masks” for demons to cling to us (or us to them), and either become atheists or “spiritualists” (such as buddhists).