Sentences with phrase «moral evil as»

Not exact matches

As the 1986 Vatican «Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons» stated, the homosexual inclination is «ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil» and is therefore an «objective disorder.»

Still, as Carl points out, the moral drama of GENESIS is an indispensable part of MUD's fidelity to the realities of good and evil.

Like (Episcopalian) Joseph Fletcher, who taught Situation Ethics in the 1960s, the exhortation suggests that there are exceptions to every moral rule and that there is no such thing as an intrinsically evil act.

It's only by convincing his followers that his immoral acts are moral that you come to believe that we are somehow misunderstanding gods evil acts and that if we only read the bible again we'd somehow see that when he killed all the first born of egypt, or impregnated a married woman and left her with a kid or that he's fine with slavery under certain conditions as good things.

using your argument we would had civil rights in this country just because goverments make certain practices illegal does tat mean that what the goverrmet s doing is moral and just, The fact s the goverment attempted to use Christaniaity to bolster it claim to power through this we have the start of the Roman Catholic Church one of the most insidious evil organzations on this planet which as doe more to oppose ad kill true follewers of Christ then ay group o this planet.

Why is it when a woman takes life through abortion it is a moral right, but when God takes life (such as in the Old Testament) he evil and morally abhorent?

But, as John Paul, Havel, and others said at the beginning of the revolution and say now, it was above all a matter of people discerning the possibility and moral imperative of «living in truth» and «calling good and evil by name.»

Nevertheless, while calling for a new politics that addresses personal moral failings as much as structural evils, Wallis talks endlessly about the latter and little about the former.

Also, as Christians we are required to speak out against moral evils that leadership in our nation may legislate in favor of.

The Church speaks with Christ's own authority on faith and morals and evils such as abortion, casual sex, the culture (or «anti-culture») of recreational drugs, binge - drinking, and pornography.

Thus the traditional conception of deity, which we have received from our past, puts its main stress on divine absoluteness or aseity; on divine causative agency as the explanation of everything that occurs whether by direct divine willing or by indirect divine permission with respect to evil done in the world; on divine self - containedness and hence lack of necessary relationship with anything else; on divine impassability, which makes any suffering impossible for God; and on divine moral perfection, with the giving of laws in accordance with which everything should be ordered.

We re-discover the meaning of heroism and friendship as we see the two hobbits clawing their way up Mount Doom; we see again the endless evil of greed and egotism in Gollum, stunted and ingrown out of moral shape by years of lust for the ring; we recognize again the essential anguish of seeing beautiful and frail things - innocence, early love, children — passing away as we read of the Lady Galadriel and the elves making the inevitable journey to the West.

His argument, part of which appeared in these pages («Leading Children Beyond Good and Evil,» May 2000), is that moral education as presently conceived almost inevitably ends up by thinning out moral content, removing the sharp edges of judgment, avoiding normative traditions of moral experience, and thus stifling the factors most crucial to the formation of character.

Official Catholic teachings describe gay or lesbian orientation as «an objective disorder» and tell those who love their same - sex partners that they possess a «tendency... toward an intrinsic moral evil.»

This question of the physical evil in the world leads us naturally on to the question of moral evil, which poses at least as difficult a question, even though it is sometimes argued that they are but different manifestations of the same thing.

When people speak of «permitting the lesser evil» they may have one or other of a number of different comparisons in mind, either between greater or lesser moral evils, or between what they think of as greater or lesser «pre-moral» evils.

(Leviticus 19:2; cf. 20:26; 21:18) Along with moral commands against such evils as child sacrifice, adultery, and sexual perversion are detailed injunctions concerning ceremonial observances, reminiscent of the old taboos.

So unstinting has been the effort to portray as virtuous the ending of the lives of the weak that it brings to mind Pope Benedict's words to the College of Cardinals in 2012: «We see how evil wants to dominate the world,» he said, and how it uses cruelty and violence, but also how it «masks itself with good and, precisely in this way, destroys the moral foundations of society.»

While they write of their qualified moral acceptance of deterrence, they mean only, as Cardinal John Krol testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that they consider deterrence to be for now the lesser of competing evils.

Rather than viewing it as a decision made for the sake of living a life free from the world's demands, Augustine agonized over the «evils» of sexuality in a doctrinal context that virtually denied the human capacity for free moral decision.

The insistence that communism and fascism be weighed on different moral scales continues, says Martin Malia in his introduction to the American edition of The Black Book, because «no matter what the hard facts are, degrees of totalitarian evil will be measured as much in terms of present politics as in terms of past realities.»

A more robust theological focus will bring to light religion's profound contribution to a world in need: not merely consensus on moral imperatives, as crucial as this is, but hope in the face of moral impotence and profound evil, confidence in otherworldly aid in this life, the courage to change, and even holy fear.

Nothing is good for Kant except a «good will,» nor does he ever seriously envisage the possibility of turning to the good with the «evil impulse» in such a way as to unify impulse and will (Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans.

Many in our age who discover the inadequacy of the simple moral opposition between good and evil tend to reduce evil to illusion or objective error, or to absolutize it as something radical, pure, and unredeemable.

Buber traces the development of this philosophy through Feuerbach and Vico to Marx, who made the distinction between good and evil a function of the class struggle, and Nietzsche, who, «like Marx, saw historical morals as the expression and instruments of the power struggle between ruling and oppressed classes.»

The specific structure of evil in the human person can not be explained as a result of the «moral censorship» of society.

In particular, false propositions would amine our sensitivity to novelty, difference such that a moral life would entail living, as Nietzsche remarked, «beyond good and evil.»

His heaviest count against the prevailing teaching of his time is precisely this: that, starting with the best intentions, it had come to encourage this folly and evil, as if it were inseparable from a high moral standard.

I'm unavailable right now as I'm currently busy not ending starvation, plagues, HIV, tsunami's, earthquakes, and other natural and moral evil's, but leave me a message, and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.»

The high moral standard (love your enemy and do good to those who do evil to you) was unattainable (and obviously unacceptable as well) by Jefferson — who was in fact in rebellion against a government in which the Bible demands he should have been submissive and subject to.

For example, granted that the evil acts of the Third Reich may have molded the moral beliefs of its citizens so that they became literally incapable of seeing the evil as evil, it is also the case that Nazism was itself possible only because of the willingness of individual Germans to have the nation's policies translated into fact.

If someone regards abortion as a moral evil and same - sex marriage as an oxymoron, as I do, he can not say so in a public forum, for it amounts to a sin against dialogue.

It has maintained a continuous moral pressure against the evils which it has regarded as blocking the fulfillment of human life.

Jesus is indignant that the scribes and Pharisees (1) will not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves and stand in the way of others entering it as well; (2) will do almost anything to win a proselyte only to make that proselyte twice as much a child of hell as they are; (3) confuse people by senseless oaths, telling them that if they swear by the Temple, their oath is not binding, but if they swear by the gold of the Temple, it is binding - the fools ought to realize, Jesus says, that the Temple includes all that is in it; (4) tithe some of their money but neglect justice and mercy and faith, which are weightier moral matters, when they ought both to tithe and perform these greater acts of righteousness as well; (5) are careful about outward cleanliness but careless about the inward disposition, so that they are filled with extortion and greed; (6) appear righteous but really are hypocrites, because their appearance hides all manner of iniquity inside; (7) pretend to revere the prophets of history whom their parents killed but continue to practice the evil of their parents by rejecting those whom God sends to them now (Matt.

If a boy is raised in a culture that teaches «Do not murder» as a moral imperative, that culture may give him the tools to understand his evil impulses and, one hopes, to master them.

Theists quite properly see the hand of God at work in major evolutionary changes such as the origin of life, but also in such everyday occurrences as the development of a fertilized egg into a cocker pup, and too in the social turmoil — including very real moral and physical evil — that accompanies economic, technological, and intellectual change.

But what has happened to the national moral fiber when whatever evil we and our newspapers say of the others — the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Serbs — is counted as national virtue?

Before the Enlightenment, they were all known as natural evils; now we call them disasters, thereby recording our belief that nature has no moral categories.

It would account for the perplexing situation in which a moral agent must intentionally will evil as part of a moral act, or allow some evil to take place through a refusal to take action.

Growing out of a series of books and essays Kekes has written over the last several years - on the nature of moral argument, the problem of evil, and the conflictual goods and evils that make up life as we know it - Against Liberalism marks the author's most explicit broadside against liberal theory to date.

In any society taken as a whole, enough moral evil can be discovered to furnish plausible basis for interpreting the society's suffering as retribution.

But then the question emerges, If the moral difference between directly and indirectly intending is simply the relation of desire to the evil, what is the moral significance of intending something as a means?

Here, we find no awareness of the Fall (except as a means of affirming total personal responsibility), no doctrine of sin as opposed to evil, no past or future eschaton, no atonement (except as a moral example), and no Incarnation (except as a «renewal» of the sense of the present immediacy of God).

They regard tolerance as a form of moral weakness, an unjustifiable compromise with falsehood and evil.

The new formula, in consequence, was that man's happiness and misery come from God as the evidence of his favor or disfavor; that one thing supremely pleases God, moral goodness, and one thing supremely he hates, moral evil; that whenever men are fortunate they must have been virtuous and whenever they are wretched they must have transgressed; that all human suffering is thus punishment for sin — «Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?»

And if the evil intended as a means is not desired for its own sake, then what is the moral difference between (3) and (1), between intending evil as a means and intending evil as the foreseeable consequence of my action?

For them the world at base is indeed really ideal, one body, as it were; evil is the superimposition by selfish desires of feelings and actions that pervert the ideal harmony.15 The bulk of the moral program then is the elimination of selfish desires so that the original clear character will shine through, or so that love of the people will be fulfilled, with all that means for the ordering of the family, economy, and state.

That which is good and moral will be seen as evil.

You are suggesting that good and evil should be unified as a moral foundation.

Just as she recognised the reality of a mathematical realm that existed independently of us humans, so she had to admit the reality of a moral realm of good and evil.