Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[STT]

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

Objective within this context means a thing that everybody agrees upon.

 

[STT]

God cannot tell us to do something evil.

Yes, for example look at 1 Samuel 15:3.

 

[STT]

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.

The whole idea that man sins revolves around the concept that he can resist to some extend.

 

[STT]

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.

That cannot be true when you use reason to choose a religion between all religions available.

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.

Morality with God also fails in the world that there are many religions. So we cannot know morality unless it is objective and we can know it by reason.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

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.

The whole idea that man sins revolves around the concept that he can resist to some extend.

Yes, and he can, which is why some sin more, some less.

 

[Vico]

The above question. [Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?]

Revelation may be defined as the communication of some truth by God to a rational creature through means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.

The truths revealed may be such as are otherwise inaccessible to the human mind — mysteries, which even when revealed, the intellect of man is incapable of fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not per se beyond the powers of reason.
…
Can it be said that Revelation is necessary to man? There can be no question as to its necessity, if it be admitted that God destines man to attain a supernatural beatitude which surpasses the exigencies of his natural endowments. In that case God must needs reveal alike the existence of that supernatural end and the means by which we are to attain it.

Joyce, G. (1912). Revelation. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

 

[fide]

Well, my suggestion is, keep listening - to Scripture and the Catechism. Seek, and you will find. Pray for light, because apart from His light, all His ways remain cloaked in mystery.

 

[STT]

By objective I mean something that everybody agree upon based on light of reason. We choose our religion in a world full of different religion based on reason. Therefore, what is conveyed in revelation must be understandable to man which means that he can understand it alone.

 

[STT]

Yes, and he can, which is why some sin more, some less.

The question is that why we call a person sinful when he just cannot resist sin anymore.

 

[o_mlly]

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

You have not yet provided as required any circumstances surrounding the act of killing the terrorist.

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."

Do you not know the circumstances surrounding the Ban on the Amalekites? The Author of life is the only Being with the authority to take human life.

 

[Vonsalza]

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow.

Morality flows from a source, be it state, god, whatever. Not you. Thus objective.

Now which God you want to serve might be subjective, but it’s not an undisputed subjectivity. If you choose Amon-Ra in a society filled with Melqart worshipers, they would argue you were wrong.

To juxtapose on the notion of what subjectivity is, the same society would likely agree that whether cous cous or rice was better tasting is completely subjective.

 

[adgloriam]

adgloriam:

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.

That cannot be true when you use reason to choose a religion between all religions available.

When you say “That” you mean what? Make yourself clear in your writing. That argument of yours lacks quality, the phrasing is so bad I don’t even consider that an answer. You just threw the first argument without addressing anything of what was said.

adgloriam:

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.

Morality with God also fails in the world that there are many religions. So we cannot know morality unless it is objective and we can know it by reason.

Again the structure of your argument is so bad it can hardly be addressed. Any one of those 2 sentences leads nowhere and lacks methodology. There’s a threshold of quality below which objectively trying to address something becomes ridiculous.

OHH and what you are trying to say has been abundantly addressed by pope John Paul II in “crossing the threshold of hope” - please read it. Do you really think the “many religions arguments” allows you to convincingly answer anything without actually answering anything?

 

[Aulef]

Even tough morality is objective, we wouldn’t be able to know all moral laws and all virtues by our own intellect.

 

[Zaccheus]

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

Why do we need math teachers if the laws of mathematics are objectively true?

Answer: objective is not the same as obvious, and if truth is objective our powers of judgment are not.

 

[fhansen]

fhansen:

Yes, and he can, which is why some sin more, some less.

The question is that why we call a person sinful when he just cannot resist sin anymore.

In Catholic teaching, a person is culpable for sin only when they have a choice, when the act is done with knowledge and deliberate consent. If they have no choice in the matter, they aren’t culpable.

 

[STT]

You have not yet provided as required any circumstances surrounding the act of killing the terrorist.

The terrorist is armed with heavy duty gun and explosive. You have the chance of killing him or letting him to go. In first case one person is killed and in second case several are killed.

Do you not know the circumstances surrounding the Ban on the Amalekites? The Author of life is the only Being with the authority to take human life.

So the act of killing children/innocents is not evil if God ask for it? That was you who call me mentally ill for saying that God never ask to kill innocent.

 

[STT]

Non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow.

Morality flows from a source, be it state, god, whatever. Not you. Thus objective.

Now which God you want to serve might be subjective, but it’s not an undisputed subjectivity. If you choose Amon-Ra in a society filled with Melqart worshipers, they would argue you were wrong.

To juxtapose on the notion of what subjectivity is, the same society would likely agree that whether cous cous or rice was better tasting is completely subjective.

It is not non-sequitur.
I said: I meant, people should have the same opinion about objective morality…
You said: No they shouldn’t…
I said: The morality is then subjective…

This is the definition of objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased.

What is your definition of objective?

 

[o_mlly]

The terrorist is armed with heavy duty gun and explosive. You have the chance of killing him or letting him to go. In first case one person is killed and in second case several are killed.

How do you know the person is a terrorist? If that knowledge is a moral certainty or that person is imminently in the act of murder then the person is not innocent.

So the act of killing children/innocents is not evil if God ask for it? That was you who call me mentally ill for saying that God never ask to kill innocent.

The Ban is an abstraction from the Bible which is not an historical book but a theological one. I asked you for a concrete example in which all the circumstances are known or knowable.

 

[STT]

When you say “That” you mean what? Make yourself clear in your writing. That argument of yours lacks quality, the phrasing is so bad I don’t even consider that an answer. You just threw the first argument without addressing anything of what was said.

Sorry for my bad English. What I am trying to say is simple. Do you use reason to find the correct religion? If the answer to this question is yes then you can understand morality based on reason. Otherwise there is a conflict between reasoning and the code of morality which is given by God.

Again the structure of your argument is so bad it can hardly be addressed. Any one of those 2 sentences leads nowhere and lacks methodology. There’s a threshold of quality below which objectively trying to address something becomes ridiculous.

Ok, let me rephrase what I was trying to say. One cannot strive to God to justify morality in the world full of different Gods and religions.

 

[adgloriam]

Do you use reason to find the correct religion?

Yes, please do, by all means.