Kamsified:
Correct me if am wrong, I heard it's only when you come in contact with a visibly sick ebola patient that you're at risk. If that is the case, pls avoid contact with anyone with any signs that resemble ebola patient & let's trust God with the rest.
It is well with you and yours

my dear that is what they said. But its the visibly part am worried about. If the guy nd his wife were doctors how couldn't they have known the diplomat guy was sick with ebola. Unless his was not visible and he was still infectious

Lovethywilbedon: I am LOVETHYWILBEDON signing in

welcome to the happening thread.

babestell:

yes

Lol, we take style be neighbors. PH brought up here

babestell:

my dear that is what they said. But its the visibly part am worried about. If the guy nd his wife were doctors how couldn't they have known the diplomat guy was sick with ebola. Unless his was not visible and he was still infectious

My dear if what I read from Sahara is anything to go by, the doctor knew the guy had ebola before receiving him in PH hence he was treating the patient secretly. Interestingly the patient is still alive while d doctor is no more.
Well I hope am the one reading it wrong

Greeting everyone... And greetings from my mumsi Salc... My prayers still with her though... Good night all...

Good marwing all.

I've gat a few questions...they are of the moral nature so answer with care.


The first.

Is it moral to be a relativist?

Kamsified: you've missed o oga Uben
Hope you've bn fine

i've been fine dear, how u dey?

Ubenedictus: Good marwing all.

I've gat a few questions...they are of the moral nature so answer with care.


The first.

Is it moral to be a relativist?

What /who is a relativist

musKeeto:
Lol, we take style be neighbors. PH brought up here

Really. Do you attend Mater?

babestell:

Really. Do you attend Mater?

Used to when I was a kid, at Rumuomasi. Then Momc carry d whole church matter for head, na so we start to dey attend Church of God Mission. Then moved to RCCG.

Pops still attends Mater though. Nice to know. We might know each other even.


Morning. Why are you up so early?

Ubenedictus: Good marwing all.

I've gat a few questions...they are of the moral nature so answer with care.


The first.

Is it moral to be a relativist?

It depends!

For Catholics it may be amoral but for the every day non-catholics (Christians or not) I don't believe it is against morals.

Looking at it critically, the 'logical' man can't help but agree with relativism. Which is the absolute truth here:

* A glass cup filled to its mid-section with water and both of us weren't there when the water was poured.

1) I see it as half full.
2) You see it as half empty.

musKeeto:
Used to when I was a kid, at Rumuomasi. Then Momc carry d whole church matter for head, na so we start to dey attend Church of God Mission. Then moved to RCCG.

Pops still attends Mater though. Nice to know. We might know each other even.


Morning. Why are you up so early?

If Daddy is one of those early morning mass regular attendees, I would know him.

I usually attend 6am mass every work day so am used to waking by 4:15am. Also the earlier you wake the more time you can spend in prayer and the bathroom.

You should attend mass at Mater one day. But not this Sunday..they are doing youth and children harvest

babestell:

If Daddy is one of those early morning mass regular attendees, I would know him.

I usually attend 6am mass every work day so am used to waking by 4:15am. Also the earlier you wake the more time you can spend in prayer and the bathroom.

You should attend mass at Mater one day. But not this Sunday..they are doing youth and children harvest

I'll take this as an invite. Will honor it soon.

"As for Herodias, she was furious with him and wanted to kill him; but she was not able to, because Herod was afraid of John, knowing him to be a good and holy man, and gave him his protection. When he had heard him speak he was greatly perplexed, and yet he liked to listen to him". MK6:19-20

Oh Herod...unfortunate you are, you who are just like most of us...yes I'm certain many are just like you. How many times have we listened to the preacher's words pierce our hearts, touching our inmost thoughts and secret acts...yeah, putting them to the scale and finding them wanting. Yet how many times have we instead clapped for the preacher, nodded in approval, looked around with a plastic smile of satisfaction; as if he just lambasted the opposition in a political gathering, and still leave such an occasion without sincere contrition and a firm purpose of amendment. Indeed aren't we like herod?..."when he heard him speak, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he liked to listen to him"...yet he took no positive step.

Brethren, can't we see the danger in this? We who rate the preachers thus...I like hearing Ube preach, I doze when Ita is preaching, Kam preaches so well, Sac doesn't know how to touch hearts...,yet do not repent of our vices. Poor Herod, when temptation came, he had no help. God's grace is always available to pull us out of the mire, yet we need to desire the help, we need to stretch out our hands, else we will be consumed when its the day of reckoning. Isn't that why the holy spirit had said ...now that you've listened to his voice, harden not your hearts.... Heb 3:7. When next the word touches us, stirs us up for a positive action in our lives, let's not tarry, let's take a positive step, let's not quench that flame. Remember Herod.

Good morning brethren, a splendid day ahead to all.

Ubenedictus: Good marwing all.

I've gat a few questions...they are of the moral nature so answer with care.


The first.

Is it moral to be a relativist?

In my opinion, I do not think it will be moral to do so in its strict sense. Imagine the morality behind excusing killing of twins because its ok in a particular culture, what could justify burying someone alive with the corpse of dead kings just because its relatively fine with a people?

At some point the relativist cannot satisfy his conscience without creating an absolute ground. What is fundamental human right if such rights are relative? Even the mere talk of moral, brings in some absoluteness, for a chief pillar for morals lies in the "golden rule", and this is absolute. So for a relativist to stake a claim on morality, he has to at some point abandon his position, else he will be endorsing quite a number of things that offends charity and morals.

alentyno: Signing in. Let me see what these folks got here.

Italo and syncan if you still interested you can continue the discussion here.
@least many catholics on this thread can help you bombard me

You are welcome. You may have observed by now that we try to keep away such discusses as you propose from here, this is like a family where things such as the "mother's name" is known by all, or taught, and not argued over. Though I do not shy away from such discuss, but then if i have to argue about "mum's name", then we are not this family, hence a thread outside here should be more appropriate.

babestell:
If Daddy is one of those early morning mass regular attendees, I would know him.
I usually attend 6am mass every work day so am used to waking by 4:15am. Also the earlier you wake the more time you can spend in prayer and the bathroom.
You should attend mass at Mater one day. But not this Sunday..they are doing youth and children harvest

Porting Sunday!

alentyno: Signing in. Let me see what these folks got here.

Italo and syncan if you still interested you can continue the discussion here.
@least many catholics on this thread can help you bombard me

What will bombard you will bombard you when the time comes.

Just continue the way you're going.

Yes na

The mass will last for like 5 hours

italo:



Porting Sunday!

Syncan:

In my opinion, I do not think it will be moral to do so in its strict sense. Imagine the morality behind excusing killing of twins because its ok in a particular culture, what could justify burying someone alive with the corpse of dead kings just because its relatively fine with a people?

At some point the relativist cannot satisfy his conscience without creating an absolute ground. What is fundamental human right if such rights are relative? Even the mere talk of moral, brings in some absoluteness, for a chief pillar for morals lies in the "golden rule", and this is absolute. So for a relativist to stick a claim on morality, he has to at some point abandon his position, else he will be endorsing quite a number of things that offends charity and morals.

I understand your viewpoint and can relate with it but the killing of twins by our forefathers can be excused. Morality, from the human standpoint is very relative. What may be good in one society may be frowned at as evil in another.

What we perceive as good or bad, to a very large extent, is dependent on our experiences in life. White and black are what they are today because of experience. If back in the day, "white" was called "black" and vise versa, Europeans would have been called black men today while Africans called white.

In same vein, a child brought up to believe that right-doing is ensuring that twins are killed in order to protect the sanctity of the community without knowing any better, the child would grow up to believe that good morals entails killing of twins.

The child's actions, though wrong by our standards, by no means suggest that the child is amoral; and he or she cannot be held culpable for any wrong-doing.

Syncan:

In my opinion, I do not think it will be moral to do so in its strict sense. Imagine the morality behind excusing killing of twins because its ok in a particular culture, what could justify burying someone alive with the corpse of dead kings just because its relatively fine with a people?

At some point the relativist cannot satisfy his conscience without creating an absolute ground. What is fundamental human right if such rights are relative? Even the mere talk of moral, brings in some absoluteness, for a chief pillar for morals lies in the "golden rule", and this is absolute. So for a relativist to stick a claim on morality, he has to at some point abandon his position, else he will be endorsing quite a number of things that offends charity and morals.

hmmm... So morals for you is absolute.

striktlymi:

It depends!

For Catholics it may be amoral but for the every day non-catholics (Christians or not) I don't believe it is against morals.

Looking at it critically, the 'logical' man can't help but agree with relativism. Which is the absolute truth here:

isn't this opinion relative?

* A glass cup filled to its mid-section with water and both of us weren't there when the water was poured.

1) I see it as half full.
2) You see it as half empty.

they are not different, a half full cup is a half empty cup.

striktlymi:

I understand your viewpoint and can relate with it but the killing of twins by our forefathers can be excused. Morality, from the human standpoint is very relative. What may be good in one society may be frowned at as evil in another.

What we perceive as good or bad, to a very large extent, is dependent on our experiences in life. White and black are what they are today because of experience. If back in the day, "white" was called "black" and vise versa, Europeans would have been called black men today while Africans called white.

In same vein, a child brought up to believe that right-doing is ensuring that twins are killed in order to protect the sanctity of the community without knowing any better, the child would grow up to believe that good morals entails killing of twins.

The child's actions, though wrong by our standards, by no means suggest that the child is amoral; and he or she cannot be held culpable for any wrong-doing.

does this mean you don't think truth is objective? Is truth what it is percieved to be or is it firm?

italo:

What will bombard you will bombard you when the time comes.

Just continue the way you're going.

Cut it dude. 'Nothing' will bombard me!
Btw is a shame that's the best you could come up with when the debate was getting quiet interesting.

striktlymi:

I understand your viewpoint and can relate with it but the killing of twins by our forefathers can be excused. Morality, from the human standpoint is very relative. What may be good in one society may be frowned at as evil in another.

What we perceive as good or bad, to a very large extent, is dependent on our experiences in life. White and black are what they are today because of experience. If back in the day, "white" was called "black" and vise versa, Europeans would have been called black men today while Africans called white.

In same vein, a child brought up to believe that right-doing is ensuring that twins are killed in order to protect the sanctity of the community without knowing any better, the child would grow up to believe that good morals entails killing of twins.

The child's actions, though wrong by our standards, by no means suggest that the child is amoral; and he or she cannot be held culpable for any wrong-doing.

I don't know if I got the question wrong, if I understand it clearly, Ubenedictus wants to know if someone who holds the Ideology of relativism could be morally right. In the example you gave, the child sees the killing of twins as absolute truth, he is not the relativist, and so not the one we are considering his moral stance. If Mary Slessor had been a relativist, imagine how many more twins would have been killed in our parts till now, we can call it "killed by our forefathers" now because people who didn't think it was relative made it stop. I talked about fundamental human rights, these such as the right to live cannot be morally right to be considered relative, I doubt the morality of any kind of support towards taking of an innocent human life.

Ubenedictus: isn't this opinion relative?

It is!

Ubenedictus:
they are not different, a half full cup is a half empty cup.

They are different. If I have two cups. One is full while the other empty. I pour into the empty cup from that which is full. My empty cup becomes half full while the initially full cup becomes half empty.

Another illustration! Look at both of them in terms of their rate of change. The full cup's rate of change is negative while that of the empty cup is positive. More like acceleration and deceleration. A negative five (-5) is not the same as a positive five (+5).

Ubenedictus:


hmmm... So morals for you is absolute.

What is morals if there are no truths, eventually all human species came from a common ancestral trail, no matter the evoluscope you are using. Most of the things we regard as differences in culture are human inventions which are not entirely pure of intent. It is therefore not exactly cool to me to sacrifice truths that originated with man, on the alter of the later inventions of men, which of course is laced with defects. Take for example the right to live, it has been there from inception, in the conscience of men. Yet in later days, we see that some tribes do bury people alive with dead kings or affluent persons in their community. We cannot excuse this as morally ok for relativity sake, when even the perpetrators desist from using their own children for such sacrifices. Imagine the sorrow of the mothers whose children were used for such sacrifices. The golden rule is an absolute truth and you find relativism violating it as in the case i just mentioned. As Christians we are all from God, and God's truth are absolute, that's why Christ came to bring the truth to the world, and He wants all men to follow that truth, as he preaches a unity of faith, that is the work of the Church...until all is made perfect.

Ubenedictus:


does this mean you don't think truth is objective? Is truth what it is percieved to be or is it firm?

It depends on your definition of the word 'truth'.

Syncan:

I don't know if I got the question wrong, if I understand it clearly, Ubenedictus wants to know if someone who holds the Ideology of relativism could be morally right. In the example you gave, the child sees the killing of twins as absolute truth, he is not the relativist, and so not the one we are considering his moral stance. If Mary Slessor had been a relativist, imagine how many more twins would have been killed in our parts till now, we can call it "killed by our forefathers" now because people who didn't think it was relative made it stop. I talked about fundamental human rights, these such as the right to live cannot be morally right to be considered relative, I doubt the morality of any kind of support towards taking of an innocent human life.

I understand and agree.

Is it impractical to hold the view of Relativism and still go ahead to correct what is perceived as wrong? I don't think being a Relativist would hold one back from furthering whatever it is the individual considers to be 'appropriate behaviour'.

striktlymi:

I understand and agree.

Is it impractical to hold the view of Relativism and still go ahead to correct what is perceived as wrong? I don't think being a Relativist would hold one back from furthering whatever it is the individual considers to be 'appropriate behaviour'.

You see, that is the problem. Are you still considering "appropriate behaviour" relative or absolute? If it is relative, why do you need to change another person's view? You can see that in doing so as you suggested, the relativist is already considering his "appropriate behavior" as superior to the one he wants to change, this is leaning towards absoluteness. This is why I made the post below earlier:

Syncan:
In my opinion, I do not think it will be moral to do so in its strict sense....At some point the relativist cannot satisfy his conscience without creating an absolute ground...So for a relativist to stake a claim on morality, he has to at some point abandon his position, else he will be endorsing quite a number of things that offends charity and morals.

alentyno:
Cut it dude. 'Nothing' will bombard me!
Btw is a shame that's the best you could come up with when the debate was getting quiet interesting.

Debate yourself. You dont know what you believe or what you don't.

This is "A Thread for Catholics."

Guys, let us consider for a second:

Even the relativist's proclamation: "truth is relative"...is an absolute statement.

Relativism has neither moral nor logical legs to stand on.

God doesn't make mistakes.