Comments on: About This Blog

By: Master Paul Xavier

Master Paul Xavier — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:34:10 +0000

I get the gist of what you are trying to say. I think.

Are you saying that morals and ethics change throughout time? So what might have been for the benefit of a growing society 2000 years ago, is no longer necessary now?

Personally, and I think many will agree, how will we survive today if we go about at will, killing, stealing, and lying? Moral and Ethics do not change. The way they are intepratated may be. But either way, they remain the same.

By: SignaVeritae

SignaVeritae — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:48:56 +0000

Well, obviously anything that harms another human should be defined as immoral, but what defines harming a human being? For instance, abortion, embryonic stem cells research. Those are two things that I reject, due to the belief that they are human life, and that it harms human life. Those are the things that should clearly be defined. Same with euthanasia. Things such as sex outside of marriage, and divorce, look at it. The world is a better place without those things. No long divorce trials, no “who gets the house. Who gets the kids?” No child support, no O.J. Simpson type things. Why do you think that prostitution is illegal? However, those are things are for each individual person to decide. But harming another human is unacceptable. However, if you become a Roman Catholic, you must abide by the laws of the Church, which is no bad way of living. It’s the choice of the people to make. The responsibility of the Government, is to, other than tax, lol defend it’s citizens. To defend the humans living within it’s realm. What defined human? That is where religion comes in.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:35:38 +0000

I apologize for the delay in my response. There has been some interesting activity since my last post. There are so many topics to cover. It seems though that the conversation has mostly shifted to ethics, so that is where I will resume. It appears that some of you believe in moral relativism and some of you believe in morality as defined by a book written in the Bronze age, and Master Christopher compared our modern judicial system to the Ten Commandments. These are all interesting viewpoints. First, I should give you my definition of ethics. I think Ethics/morals are to be defined as what “ought” to be. How we “ought” to act. The word “ought” is important here. Especially when talking about Moral Relativism. As a theory, Moral Relativism does not speak to what “ought” to be. It speaks to what “is.” This is a big difference. It uses as examples the way humans behave. In this way, it is more an anthropological or psychological study of human behavior. This is NOT a theory of ethics in the classical sense. However it does have its place which I will bring up later. In the case of the Ten Commandments, how many of those are laws today? Two? Kill and steal. What does that tell us? Maybe that those rules are a little outdated for our society? What else does that tell us? That lessons gleamed from a book written over 1000 years ago may teach us some valuable lessons about life but may not be the only source text that we structure our lives around?
Master Paul, I do agree in the existence of the conscience. We just disagree on its source. You believe that it was endowed by a Creator. This is a belief shared by many of the great philosophers, such as Kant, and Aquinas. However, our difference comes down to evolution. I see no proof for the existence of God, as Kant and Aquinas tried to prove, but I do for evolution. So I think we will always disagree on the source. I will though tell you what I think the source is. The conscience, and morality for that matter are evolutionary necessities. If you think back to the earliest civilizations, how would they have survived if everyone killed at will, or stole, or lied? These rules that we live by, that seem to be embedded in us a priori, are nothing more than an adaptation that gives us an evolutionary advantage. It is not coincidence that the writers of the Bible and our law makers have hit upon the same conclusion, that it is not conducive to society’s existence that we kill each other, or steal, or lie. It is also not by coincidence that cultures which pre-date Christianity and Judaism by thousands of years also reached the same conclusion. Morality is necessary to survive.
This is where Moral Relativism gets interesting. What if a group of people exist that don’t have a goal of building and maintaining a society? They may have a goal of bringing an end to society. Well then, their morals are not going to look similar to ours. They might think it is good to kill, steal, rape, and lie. There are patterns to be seen from this. If a society has as its goal to maintain itself and prosper, you will find moral guidelines similar to our laws in America, and similar to what can be found in religious and secular philosophic text from around the world. At least on the major issues: kill, steal, lie. Other issues seem to be relevant to the time and place. However, if a society is destructive, you would find the opposite of our moral guidelines.
To knight for right, I appreciate your commendation. And I will leave you with a delightful quote to meditate upon: “For he that believes, no proof is necessary. For he that does not, no proof is possible.”

By: knight for right

knight for right — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:03:44 +0000

Wow…what did I miss here?
this looks like a good debate. I went through a couple bags of pop-corn, and knew I couldn’t pass this up. Master Christopher Joseph, talk about a stump in the middle of the road huh? OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!! (I feel like a cheering section)
And Matt…..I tell you….you’ve got more courage than any of us here. To think….your arguments are not going to even phase these people. But you keep them comming. That takes a lot of guts. I commend you!
Although the battle has been very colorful Matt, where are you comming from?
I don’t really want to beat a dead horse, but I like the issue on morality the best. The standpoint of what is moral/good and what is immoral/bad all depends on the person thinking about it. “Morals” are nothing more than a thought process to destinguish between what is right and wrong. You can get the thought process, or moral characteristics, from a whole bunch of places. Church, family, friends, school, government programs, lectures, etc..are all examples of where a person might get those characterisitics. By the sound of things, Signa got them from church, and you got them from some secular place. But does this mean that her’s are no more valid than yours on a face value? Absulutely not!
Just like logic, these thought processes can be used to justify many things. The Natzi’s used obeying your commanding officer, a moral point, to justify loading thousands of Jews into trains to be slaughtered like sheep. Others said what they were doing were wrong, but was it? (don’t get me wrong……I am no Natzi….this is just to get you to think)
In conluding, I would just to say that, before you start using that fancy talking to prove absolutely nothing….just think about who your talking to, and what your going to say.

I have a lot to say, just like you…so lets continue shall we?

By: Master Christopher Joseph

Master Christopher Joseph — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:54:01 +0000

Matt, you make a perfect example of the way the world thinks when you made the assumption that “to discuss the atrocities performed in the name of, or against religion would ultimately lead to an agreement that doing evil is bad, no matter what the purpose may be. ” But the problem with this statement is: what is GOOD, and what is BAD? What is MORAL and what is IMMORAL? I’m sure in some people’s turn-key environment where everyone is nice to each other and have the same way of thinking, this assumption would be true. But the cold trueth of it all is……..we dont all live in that environment. You see, people who dont have “guidelines” as it were, tend to create their own illusion of what is good/bad/moral/immoral to fit their desired actions. I’m sure we are all in agreement that raping and murdering a woman would be bad/immoral. But to a rapist/murderer this is good/moral, because to them it is better to kill the victim then have them live life psychologically damaged. They are just doing the victim a favor………do yo see where I’m getting at yet? There has to be some form of unity in the sense of what is good/bad/moral/immoral.

But it seems to me that you do not want the Church for this and quickly pick up your skirts and run to the horizon of the State. But I have news for you………what does the Government have that is so simillar to the Church? To answer this question, I’ll draw out a little graph for you:

Church:

(1) doctrines saying what is good/bad
(2) doctrines saying how to live out your every day life
(3) punishment if you do not follow doctrines of 1 & 2

State:

(1) statutes saying what is good/bad
(2) statutes saying how to live out your every day life
(3) punishment if you do not follow statutes of 1 & 2

It seems to me that the only thing your afraid of is the difference between the words “doctrine” and “statute”.

Here is another concept you may not have considered (including Mater Paul and Signa): Doesn’t it seem that most of the State statutes have a lot in common with the Church?

Ex:

Church:

Thou shalt not kill [unjustly]!

State:

the unlawfully killing of another person with malice aforethought is prohibited!

SAME THING……..DIFFERENT WORDS!

And here is yet another concept:

Why does it seem that the State parallels the rules of the Catholic Church in particulare instead of all religions?

Ex#1: The Catholic Church prohibits the husband from beating their wives……..The State prohibits this……..but some religions dont. In fact, in some religions its considered good/moral to beat their wives on a frequent basis. Clearly the State government was not founded on that religion

Ex #2: The Catholic Church alone has what are called specifically “The Ten Commandments”. The Supreme Court building has hanging inside the court room on the wall “The Ten Commandments”………WHAT A COINSIDENCE!!!

So wrapping this up, it is clear from the EVIDENCE I have stated above that the Church and State actually do, or at least used to, fully coexist and at least for the most part, still compliment each other today.

So Matt, if you just cant coexist with the Church then I am sorry to burst your bubble because the State is basically the same thing!

In conclusion, I will say that the difference between “faith” and “theory” is in how you find out if you’re wrong (I was interested in that debate too). A theory can be created, proven and disproven in a single test. But faith on the other hand can only be proven or disproven after death. And trust me, people are dying to find out! (cough….had to add that in there) So the only question that needs to be considered is: What do I have to loose? If you are right Matt that the Church should be ignored, if not destroyed, and you are right, then you have nothing to loose by thinking this way. But what if your wrong? What if the Catholic Church is the way to go and you find out that there is a “life after death” and eternal punishment to go with it? It seems to me that you would have everything to loose!

I’ll end with a quote from Padre Pio when posed with this very question:

“So you dont believe in Hell?……..well, you will when you get there”

I hope this isn’t your fate Matt!