The Objective Morality Debate

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1308152623' post='2254016']
See, I'm pretty sure that Mr. Catholic Cat did [b]not[/b] say that the Founding Fathers did not have a belief in a higher power. See for yourself



I believe he was saying that is country was NOT founded as a "Christian nation," but was, rather, a nation formed BY (some) Christians and other theists whose education came by way of parochial schools.

By the way, which "father" were you speaking of when you said "the father who founded the united states of america did not say thses things?" Was it Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston or Roger Sherman, all of whom had a part in writing or editing the Declaration of Independence? Just post whatever you find on Wikipedia when you search for the answer, mk?
[/quote]


keep up the insults. its a good thing when a catholic insults someone. i am sure God loves it when a catholic insults someone else.

[Mr.Cat]

I think you are assuming kujo's tone to be offensive. Even if it was, that isn't necessarily an insult.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1308199896' post='2254448']
keep up the insults. its a good thing when a catholic insults someone. i am sure God loves it when a catholic insults someone else.
[/quote]

I don't believe I was being insulting there, havok. It appears that you and I are having a communication problem. I was merely stating that you were mistaken regarding the words and intention of Mr. Catholic Cat's statement, and then informing you (and others) of the origins of his comment. If that insulted you for some reason, I do apologize. I hope God will find it in Himself to forgive me, too.

[stevil]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1308160095' post='2254074']
To this extent we agree. Although the Christian perspective is that love needn't be mutual, nor consensual for it to be appropriate. We're called to love everyone. (Yes, I know this isn't what you meant, but don't use euphemisms that hide what you're trying to say; if you want to say "putting anatomical pieces in places they aren't designed to be," just say that.)
[/quote]
Actually, I wasn't imploring euphemisms, I was actually talking about love. When I see two people deeply in love, I feel warm fuzzies inside, I think most people see this type of love as something special. I take a bus to work, some school kids also take the bus. There is a boy and a girl on the bus, probably about 16 that are very much in love. Even though the bus is full and people have to stand, people generally don't sit next to the girl, they generally let the boy who gets on a little later sit next to her. I think this is because people know how special love is. To me, regardless if it is boy/girl or same gender, I think it is a special kind of love and should be cherished and let to flourish into a roaring blaze.
If people take this into a physical context of the act of sex, then I feel this is their business. The desire for sex is a very natural and primitive urge, especially when you love someone. I obviously have no issues with other people having homosexual sex. It is not my place to approve or disapprove of what these people do in their own privacy.

I am starting to understand why catholics are against contraceptives (e.g. with the belief that it leads to casual sex which potentially leads to unwanted pregnancy which potentially leads to abortions) but I don't know why catholics are against homosexual sex, this certainly won't lead to any abortions.

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1308160095' post='2254074']
This is interesting from you; if it were Christians believing something, you would be rather quick to say it's because we want to believe it. Why do you expect higher motives from non-Christians?
[/quote]
No, this is not my argument and I have never said that. A person has every right to believe in what they believe regardless of whether I think it is misguided or not.

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1308160095' post='2254074']
Contraception because it leads to abortion
[/quote]
Here's a scenario that I would be interested to know how Catholics feel about. This is personal to myself, I see no problem with it and I am not asking so that I can justify my actions or to taunt you with my badness. I'm just interested in the Catholic view because this goes beyond the worry of abortion.

My Wife and I were married for many years before we decided to have children. We wanted to have sex with each other but didn't necessarily want to have children straight away, so we used condoms and were very careful. Had my wife got pregnant we would have gone through with it and had the child and given it much love. But we were keen to simply enjoy our time together, just her and me and would have preferred to have children later in life if at all. We never had ideas of having a big family, two kids would really be the maximum that we would want. So in order to delay parent hood and minimise the amount of offspring we decided on condoms. This has worked out perfect for us. No-one has been hurt during the course of our sexcapades and all seems good.
Can you please provide me with some reasoning on why Catholicism would see contraceptives as bad in this scenario?

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1308160095' post='2254074']
you should submit your will to that of the Church.
[/quote]
I have a personal rule for myself that I strive to follow (not that I am suggesting that you should follow my rule)
My rule to myself is that I should never say should , especially to other people. Unless I have walked a lifetime in their shoes, how would I know what another person should or shouldn't do? Anyway, I just thought of that due to your phrase above, but I'm not trying to tell you off. It's my rule for me not for you. I just wondered what Catholics would think of my rule, is it wise, misguided, stupid?

Edited June 16, 2011 by stevil

[Polsky215]

Natural here is used in a different sense. It doesn't mean what naturally happens but what naturally ought to happen. Therefore, just because it is the law of nature does not mean everyone knows it. Furthermore, we are fallen beings, meaning we have fallen far away from what ought to happen and getting back, not to mention knowing how to get back has become difficult to discern or do. The Catholic Church cause this inclination towards the morally wrong since the fall "concupiscence." Without God there can be no objective morality. Evolution, a physical process, cannot create something metaphysical.

[Polsky215]

one of the spiritual works of mercy according to the church is admonishing sinners. So yes saying "should" should be done. With that said, the catechism does clarify that you SHOULD always assume the best of others. If someone just picked up your dog and dropped it out of the back of his car at 80 miles an hour you should still assume the best of him and not be the judge of his moral fault for an action though you CAN judge the action itself

[mortify]

Essentially what fallls under natural law is what we can call objective morality.

[stevil]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308611187' post='2256541']
Essentially what fallls under natural law is what we can call objective morality.
[/quote]
This brings us back to the first post of this thread. However stating natural law is almost no different with regards to clarity as stating objective morality, with either there is no clear, decisive and authoritative reference that all people can go to in order to settle disputes with regards to morality or natural law.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308649564' post='2256714']This brings us back to the first post of this thread. However stating natural law is almost no different with regards to clarity as stating objective morality, with either there is no clear, decisive and authoritative reference that all people can go to in order to settle disputes with regards to morality or natural law.[/quote]"[i]Natural law[/i]" is a vague, unverifiable, incoherent, contradictory, and argumentative term. Questions such as if society and government are natural or synthetic phenomena is a good example of inherent failings of such a proposal. In political science and catholic theology, the term is generally accepted to be undefined and difficult to define, thus practical application is a moot argument. As even justices of the court have commented, if lofty aspirations of natural law were possible, it would certainly make determining good from bad laws much easier.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308649564' post='2256714']
This brings us back to the first post of this thread. However stating natural law is almost no different with regards to clarity as stating objective morality, with either there is no clear, decisive and authoritative reference that all people can go to in order to settle disputes with regards to morality or natural law.
[/quote]

Catholics have an "authoritative reference" in the Magisterium, but even without the teaching authority it is possible to arrive at things objectively. Natural Law is is basically what can be known by reason. So for example, we can know by reason that homosoxual acts are disordered, we don't need Divine revelation to teach us that.

[stevil]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308682164' post='2256880']
So for example, we can know by reason that homosoxual acts are disordered, we don't need Divine revelation to teach us that.
[/quote]
I don't see any disorder in homosexual acts. People use all sorts of body parts for all sort of reasons. We are smart enough to work out how to use our bodies exactly the way that we choose.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1308061571' post='2253597']
telling the truth and being frank about it is not insulting. everything i listed is how athiests act and how this athiest acted.
[/quote]

Not to act immature or anything...but looks to me like you started it.

He's just pointing out that you're acting just as a Catholic would and just how Catholics want other Catholics to act. Don't be so quick to judge.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1308062754' post='2253613']
That is not my claim. I think that the individual who doesn't believe in God probably doesn't give a croutons what you or I believe; however, as with every other interest in an open society like our own, there are people who would seek to politicize this issue and extend their beliefs into the public sector. They form groups and lobby local, state and federal policymakers and seek to see their beliefs recognized on whatever scale they focus on. In my mind, that focus and effort is no different than the same ones taken by literally every other interest group in this country. The only thing that separates it is that you (and I) don't agree with it.

But, again, I am of the opinion that Joe Schmo Atheist doesn't care what we believe. We really shouldn't care what he or she believes either.
[/quote]

I know I don't though I think it's an interesting subject and certainly relavent, don't I do want to reserve the right to not believe in things that just aren't for me (Christianity as a religion is a impossibility lol). My support for secularism and the attacks on religions playing role in government which in turn do affect people who are not of that religion is based on my right to not participate in certain things. I guess most of the aggressiveness coming from some here is that they're too quick to see the attacks on the extensions of their religion onto the public sphere (political and government sanctioned) as attacks on their personal beliefs and the right that they have to believe whatever they like.

[mortify]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1308683309' post='2256893']
I don't see any disorder in homosexual acts.[/quote]

They are disordered because they run contrary to human nature. All you need is a basic understanding of human physiology. I think most people will realize this, but even so, they wont care. Most believe any act, even a severely disordered one, is perfectly ok among consenting adults. They might personally find it abhorrent, but they will ultimately follow a relativistic view of things.

[quote]People use all sorts of body parts for all sort of reasons. We are smart enough to work out how to use our bodies exactly the way that we choose.
[/quote]

Key word is choose. The current spirit of the age says there is nothing higher than the individual person. Therefore the individual person is their own moral arbiter, and therefore, if they choose to act in a disordered way privately, who cares?

Fortunately for us Catholics, we follow right reason enlightened by faith.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308783518' post='2257433']
They are disordered because they run contrary to human nature. All you need is a basic understanding of human physiology. I think most people will realize this, but even so, they wont care. Most believe any act, even a severely disordered one, is perfectly ok among consenting adults. They might personally find it abhorrent, but they will ultimately follow a relativistic view of things.
[/quote]

If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, then how can you say that it's against human nature or natural law? Homosexuality also occurs among other animals (not that it means that people should act like other animals) so how can it not be natural as well?

Why would a god who created genes that manifest in homosexuality be against it?

I think you're simplifying things a bit too much, and that a more in depth understanding of genetics and physiology is needed.