Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[fhansen]

The above question. (the rest for sake of minimum characters)

Because man can override his conscience. “God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.” Augustine

 

[STT]

Who knows which religion is objectively correct?

Beats me.

But you don’t get to choose what it teaches, thus the objectivity.

I meant, people should have the same opinion about objective morality which this is impossible in a world with too many religion.

 

[STT]

The terrorist is not innocent.

I didn’t say otherwise. They however could be ignorant or follow the rule given to them by their God.

 

[STT]

The deaths of many innocent are unintended, that is un-willed.

Do you kill terrorist or not?

See a therapis

Wut?

 

[o_mlly]

Do you kill terrorist or not?

The question is did YOU kill the terrorist and, if so, do you judge the act evil or not?

See a therapis

Anyone who thinks, “God made me do evil”, is mentally unstable.

 

[STT]

SST wrote: “I don’t think that addresses the problem since I don’t think that man’s disordered appetite allows man to convinces himself that immoral act is moral.”

The Catechism is reflecting the teachings of the Holy Spirit through St. Paul, in Scripture:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
Rom 1:21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools ,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
Rom 1:25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.

I don’t understand how those quotes are related to what I mentioned.

 

[STT]

Because man can override his conscience. “God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.” Augustine

No, man just give up to resist sin when he is overwhelmed by pressure to sin.

 

[STT]

The question is did YOU kill the terrorist and, if so, do you judge the act evil or not?

No, it is not evil.

Anyone who thinks, “God made me do evil”, is mentally unstable.

So, lets put it this way, you know that a innocent person will turn into a murderer. Would you kill him?

 

[Wozza]

Anyone who thinks, “God made me do evil”, is mentally unstable.

God can’t make you do evil. So if God says to kill someone then it is good. It is only us who might think it could be evil. We cannot know God’s mind.

 

[Vonsalza]

I meant, people should have the same opinion about objective morality…

No they shouldn’t. If something is declared wrong because STT says so, I’ll probably commit the act simply in the same of principle.

Individual morality is useless. I don’t care what you morally think. You don’t care what I morally think.

What do you appeal to?

which this is impossible in a world with too many religion.

Not impossible. Ya just pick.

I highly recommend the dominant religion of your culture.

 

[fide]

SST - “I don’t understand how those quotes are related to what I mentioned.”

How do you understand this part of what I quoted:
“God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”

Does this not explain how "man’s disordered appetite allows man to convinces himself that immoral act is moral.”? God “gave them up” - over to their own lusts. They rejected the Natural Moral Law that God put into them, so He took it away, leaving them to embrace their own sinful lusts.

 

[o_mlly]

The question is did YOU kill the terrorist and, if so, do you judge the act evil or not?

It is always good to not do evil.

Anyone who thinks, “God made me do evil”, is mentally unstable.

Your predicate is impossible so your question is meaningless.

 

[o_mlly]

We cannot know God’s mind.

OK. (Revelation interpreted authentically notwithstanding.)

So if God says to kill someone then it is good.

? How does one know that if one cannot know God’s mind?

 

[BornInMarch]

Because humans are fallible and often miss the mark. “Objective” doesn’t always mean “Self-Evident”.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So if God says to kill someone then it is good.

? How does one know that if one cannot know God’s mind?

God cannot tell us to do something evil.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Because man can override his conscience. “God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.” Augustine

No, man just give up to resist sin when he is overwhelmed by pressure to sin.

Well, the whole idea behind the concept of sin includes the fact that man can resist it. It wouldn’t be sinful otherwise. To put it another way, the concept of sin is meaningless unless morality is objective.

 

[adgloriam]

Why should we need revelation when it comes to morality if morality is objective?

For two reasons:

1º You can think about God and reach certain truths through your own reason, but only God could revel the truths about Himself He chose to reveal in revelation - those truths could not be attained by the use of reason.

2º Morality without God ultimately always fails, as philosophy and politics have shown. And it is God who is the source of sanctity, we cannot be saintly or moral without collaborating with God’s grace whether be it conscious or not.

 

[STT]

No they shouldn’t.

Therefore the morality is subjective.

 

[STT]

SST - “I don’t understand how those quotes are related to what I mentioned.”

How do you understand this part of what I quoted:
“God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie.”

Does this not explain how "man’s disordered appetite allows man to convinces himself that immoral act is moral.”? God “gave them up” - over to their own lusts. They rejected the Natural Moral Law that God put into them, so He took it away, leaving them to embrace their own sinful lusts.

I understand the quote. It just doesn’t address what you are suggesting :“man’s disordered appetite allows man to convinces himself that immoral act is moral”.

 

[STT]

It is always good to not do evil.

So, you leave the terrorist free to kill people instead of killing him? What kind of logic is that?

Your predicate is impossible so your question is meaningless.

Actually I found the verse that God command to kill innocent: 1 Samuel 15:3 " Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."