1
General Comments / Re: A Pill for Men?
« on: March 10, 2023, 06:39:38 AM »OK - fair enough. I guess it my fault for assuming that an objective morality must be tied to acts alone. It does make it a lot harder to get away from "evil is what I think is evil" as circumstances must be considered in each and every case.Quotejc44 Believe it or not I'm not attempting to sneer at you - I _am_ poking at your argument, which seems to me to be, that there is a single eternal objective morality that defines some acts as evil irrespective of circumstance that can be discovered through reason.
Lol, what? I I have said circumstances are relevant in this thread about a dozen times:QuoteJosh: God is not a simple deontological machine; He comprehends all of the circumstances of an action in his judgment.
Josh: In this circumstance, slavery to me seems like a mercy.
Josh: If I want to be as generous as possible to your original post, I will say that God understands the full circumstances of our sins, and judges us justly and with mercy.
Josh: I'm not trying to tangent the thread again from this already long tangent on whether eating the flesh of the already deceased is forbidden in every imaginable circumstance. In the general case, it is certainly evil.
Josh: The object is to buy bread, the intention is to feed your family so they don't starve, and the circumstances (while unfortunate) do not change the act to an evil act; it's not generally reasonable to expect that by buying a loaf of bread you'll cause someone else to starve to death.
Josh: In order for an act to be moral, it must pass three tests: the object must not be evil, the intention must not be evil, and the circumstances must not be evil
Josh: The Church talks about all sorts of ways a person might not be fully guilty of their sins due to mitigating circumstances.
Josh: Intention is only one part of the three-pronged test for whether an act is evil. In addition to intention being good, the object and the circumstances must also be good
Josh: As I said: a person might have committed apparently evil acts but those acts did not constitute a moral evil because of some mitigating circumstances
Josh: When you say "But if you commit evil without intending evil" you seem to be thinking that as long as I don't intend evil, then the act is not evil. But that's not right. Both the object and the circumstances of the act must also be good for the act to be good.
Josh: he doctrinal support for this is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1749-1761. It specifies that an act can only be moral if it has a good object, a good intention, and good circumstances.
Quote
...and that there are things in the bible that are not true? (honest question to understand where you are coming from).Quotejc44I used scripture as starting point because you quite often appear to use Roman Catholic Christianity as a touchstone for this eternal truth.
Yeah, Catholics do not have faith in scripture in that way. That viewpoint is typically embraced by fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of things that are true that are not revealed in scripture.
P.S. A bit earlier you said that the protestants had removed a number of books from the bible - are those what I would know as the Apocrypha or are they some others? and so do Roman Catholics use a different bible to Protestants (and if not then why not)? I have a the King James and its descendants set as "standard".