Masomo 21 Kwa Ajili ya karne ya 21: Ukweli Kinyonga, Kuna Ukweli Bandia Unaodumu Milele

[Doctor Mama Amon]

Aristotle (384-322) held that what was "just by nature" was not always the same as what was "just by law," that there was a natural justice valid every where with the same force and "not existing by people's thinking this or that" and that appeal could be made to it from positive law.

Your concern is "just by law" and not "just by nature." To you what is important to consider is positive law and not natural law. Thinking this way is absolutely wrong and irrational creature.

The phrase NATURAL LAW is not univocal, but equivocal.
So, you need to qualify you claims when you use it
Read the following:

Some Mistaken Theories of Moral Principles​

Today, as in the past, a number of mistaken theories of moral principles enjoy currency.

According to one view, moral principles are established by God’s arbitrary choice.

They are as they are, but they could be different; they are not truths but commands. It is certainly true that God’s will ought to be followed.

But faith provides a cogent reason for doing so: that he is guiding us to our true good.

By his wisdom he makes us what we are and so determines the requirements for our fulfillment.

Moral norms, rather than being arbitrary demands made upon us by God, are truths about how to act in ways that are humanly good.

Cultural relativism is another mistaken view of moral principles.

According to this account, moral principles are expressions of conditions for the survival and more or less satisfactory functioning of particular societies; they vary as these conditions vary from society to society.

This, however, confuses social facts (what various societies actually do require) with true moral norms. It removes all basis for moral criticism of society.

And it is contrary to the Christian awareness of the human condition, as fallen and redeemed, and the transcultural character of the Church.

The view which may be called “scholastic natural-law theory” holds that moral principles are laws of human nature: Moral goodness or badness can be discerned by comparing possible actions with human nature to see whether or not they conform to the requirements which nature sets.

Nature does indeed have a certain normativity, from which certain requirements follow: for instance, the laws of diet.

But this theory must be rejected because it proceeds by a logically illicit step—from human nature as a given reality to what ought and ought not to be chosen, from what is in fact to what morally should be.

Scholastic natural-law theory’s use of nature as a norm helps explain the negativism and minimalism of classical moral theology.

What does not conform to human nature can be absolutely forbidden, but what does conform cannot be absolutely required.

This critique indicates what an adequate theory of moral principles must show:

against a theory of moral feelings, how conscience is a judgment;

against intuitionism, how moral reflection starts from principles and proceeds by reasoning;

against a personal-choice theory, how moral principles and norms are objective;

against a divine command theory, how norms are truths;

against cultural relativism, how norms are more than social facts;

against scholastic natural-law theory, how norms guide persons to act for human fulfillment.

The New Natural Law theory addresses these concerns.

Source: Grisez

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

Noted as a correct claim. But, the matter that remains for you to attend is showing the truth value of the following statements, namely:

1. Marriage is an interpersonal relationship whichnis unitive and procreative in type.

2. Coitus is a unitive sign that points to marital unity.

3. Coitus is a procreative sign that points to parental unity.

4. Procreative significance is inherent in each and every act of coitus

5. Unitive significance is inherent in each and every act of coitus

6. There is an inseparable link between the unitive significance and procreative significance of coitus

7. Intentionally separating the link between the unitive and procreative significance breaks the natural law.

8. Breaking the natural law is a moral evil.

9. Contraception breaks the natural law.

10. Thus, contraception is a moral evil.

Assent to Unsupported claims as often made by the Pope is not, and cannot be, guaranteed in t

In my view I think the Church stands for truth. It teaches and preaches truth.

About truth, the Church speaks eternal law as opposed to positive law.

The Church teaches that positive law or rules of society is acceptable if and only they agree with and serves Creator's works.

Returning back to your statements as highlighted there above.

The truth value of these statements is revealed in Holy Scriptures (See Gen 1:26-27).

The catechism of the Catholic Church shows the truth value of these statements I highlighted (See Sacrament of Matrimony).

Man and woman were made for each other - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be helpmate to the other, for they are equal as persons and complementary as masculine and feminine.

In marriage God unites man and woman in a such way that, by forming "one flesh", they can transmit human life.

By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.

In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of subduing the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not be an arbitrary and destructive domination.

God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator who loves everything that exists to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them (Catechism of the Catholic Church; Marriage in God's Plan).

Ukiangalia hapo Mungu amemuumba mume na mke, kwa ndoa anataka washiriki kazi zake za uumbaji.

Amewapa utawala, lakini kutumia utawala au uwezo au maarifa kinyume na ulivyo na mpango au utaratibu au kanuni yake ni kosa.

Kwa hiyo kwa kuzingatia ukweli wa vikinga au vizibiti mimba na hata kuzaa kuliko holela kusiko fuata utaratibu au mpangilio wa akili na dhamiri safi, vyote ni kosa kimaadili.

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

In my view I think the Church stands for truth. It teaches and preaches truth.

About truth, the Church speaks eternal law as opposed to positive law.

The Church teaches that positive law or rules of society is acceptable if and only they agree with and serves Creator's works.

Returning back to your statements as highlighted there above.

The truth value of these statements is revealed in Holy Scriptures (See Gen 1:26-27).

The catechism of the Catholic Church shows the truth value of these statements I highlighted (See Sacrament of Matrimony).

Man and woman were made for each other - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be helpmate to the other, for they are equal as persons and complementary as masculine and feminine.

In marriage God unites man and woman in a such way that, by forming "one flesh", they can transmit human life.

By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator's work.

In God's plan man and woman have the vocation of subduing the earth as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not be an arbitrary and destructive domination.

God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator who loves everything that exists to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them (Catechism of the Catholic Church; Marriage in God's Plan).

Ukiangalia hapo Mungu amemuumba mume na mke, kwa ndoa anataka washiriki kazi zake za uumbaji.

Amewapa utawala, lakini kutumia utawala au uwezo au maarifa kinyume na ulivyo na mpango au utaratibu au kanuni yake ni kosa.

Kwa hiyo kwa kuzingatia ukweli wa vikinga au vizibiti mimba na hata kuzaa kuliko holela kusiko fuata utaratibu au mpangilio wa akili na dhamiri safi, vyote ni kosa kimaadili.

Four issues:

Firstly, I prefer to dialogue with some one who can adhere to a point counter point style of argumentation. You seem to deliberately avoid this approach in a way that portrays you as an incompetent debater.

We evaluate arguments by looking at the truth values of their premises one after another and then the general relationship between them. You don't comply with this tradition

Secondly, referring someone to the cathechism or some other source, as a response to a point in a debate, without yourself citing the relevant part of that source is an irresponsible conduct. That is your job.

Thirdly, the Cathechism has nothing that can help us defend the argument that starts from the principle of inseparability. You are wasting our time.

And fourthly, the argument against contraception that starts from an inseparability principle is a natural law argument. To this extent you have not responded to my ten points adequately. They are:

1. Marriage is an interpersonal relationship whichnis unitive and procreative in type.

2. Coitus is a unitive sign that points to marital unity.

3. Coitus is a procreative sign that points to parental unity.

4. Procreative significance is inherent in each and every act of coitus

5. Unitive significance is inherent in each and every act of coitus

6. There is an inseparable link between the unitive significance and procreative significance of coitus

7. Intentionally separating the link between the unitive and procreative significance breaks the natural law.

8. Breaking the natural law is a moral evil.

9. Contraception breaks the natural law.

10. Thus, contraception is a moral evil.

Try again.

 

[Nundu_Tanzania]

The phrase NATURAL LAW is not uniquivocal.

We have old thomistic natural law, the new natural law theory said to be an updated version, the old natural law theory found in theological manuals, and many other versions.

So, you need to qualify you claims when you use the phrase NATURAL LAW

I don't know at which angle is natural law as a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature than from the rules of society is ambiguous.

Mtakatifu Thomas Aquinas katika mafundisho ambayo ndio yametafsiriwa kimakosa na watu mbalimbali ndani na nje ya kanisa, alisema sheria ya Mungu haifahamiki kwetu kwa ukamilifu kama ambavyo inafahamika na Mungu mwenyewe.

Sheria ya asili si chochote kingine ila sheria ya Mungu alioiandika ndani moyoni mwa viumbe wake.

Mtu anaruhusiwa kutengeneza kanuni au utaratibu kulinda au kutetea wema. Hii haiondoi; wala haiwi mbadala wa sheria ya Mungu alioiandanika ndani moyoni mwa mtu inayomsifu akifanya vema na inayomlaumu akifanya vibaya.

Ukisoma vizuri kitabu cha Hariri: Masomo 21 kwa ajili ya karne 21 kadiri ya tafsiri yako, utaona kuwa mwandishi ana mashaka kwa sababu ya kuharibiwa kwa asili.

Anaona kwamba mwenendo wa dunia kuacha asili na kuangali ufanisi (positive law) ni kosa na hatari inayo sababisha maisha duniani kuharibika.

Kwahiyo kutazama upya sheria, kanuni au utaratibu au mifumo ya maisha na mafundisho ya imani na maadili ni kitu kizuri kama tu kufanya hivyo hakuvunji au hakuingilii asili - sheria ya Mungu.

Kutafuta kuwa bora kwa sababu nyingine yoyote isiokuwa na isiozingati asili -sheria ya Mjungu ni uharibifu mkubwa na matumizi ovu ya kazi za kiakili.

 

[crusader_jr]

Dadeki walai ngoja nikaloweke kichwa narudi nipate kitu wakuu sema icho kikiristo(kidhungu) kimecharazwa mno humu

 

[Doctor Mama Amon]

I don't know at which angle is natural law as a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature than from the rules of society is ambiguous.

Mtakatifu Thomas Aquinas katika mafundisho ambayo ndio yametafsiriwa kimakosa na watu mbalimbali ndani na nje ya kanisa, alisema sheria ya Mungu haifahamiki kwetu kwa ukamilifu kama ambavyo inafahamika na Mungu mwenyewe.

Sheria ya asili si chochote kingine ila sheria ya Mungu alioiandika ndani moyoni mwa viumbe wake.

Mtu anaruhusiwa kutengeneza kanuni au utaratibu kulinda au kutetea wema. Hii haiondoi; wala haiwi mbadala wa sheria ya Mungu alioiandanika ndani moyoni mwa mtu inayomsifu akifanya vema na inayomlaumu akifanya vibaya.

Ukisoma vizuri kitabu cha Hariri: Masomo 21 kwa ajili ya karne 21 kadiri ya tafsiri yako, utaona kuwa mwandishi ana mashaka kwa sababu ya kuharibiwa kwa asili.

Anaona kwamba mwenendo wa dunia kuacha asili na kuangali ufanisi (positive law) ni kosa na hatari inayo sababisha maisha duniani kuharibika.

Kwahiyo kutazama upya sheria, kanuni au utaratibu au mifumo ya maisha na mafundisho ya imani na maadili ni kitu kizuri kama tu kufanya hivyo hakuvunji au hakuingilii asili - sheria ya Mungu.

Kutafuta kuwa bora kwa sababu nyingine yoyote isiokuwa na isiozingati asili -sheria ya Mjungu ni uharibifu mkubwa na matumizi ovu ya kazi za kiakili.

I refer you back to the former response....

Four issues:

Firstly, I prefer to dialogue with some one who can adhere to a point counter point style of argumentation. You seem to deliberately avoid this approach in a way that portrays you as an incompetent debater.

We evaluate arguments by looking at the truth values of their premises one after another and then the general relationship between them. You don't comply with this tradition

Secondly, referring someone to the cathechism or some other source, as a response to a point in a debate, without yourself citing the relevant part of that source is an irresponsible conduct. That is your job.

Thirdly, the Cathechism has nothing that can help us defend the argument that starts from the principle of inseparability. You are wasting our time.

 

[aimi lyatuu]

Wewe ama ni mwongo au una tatizo la kutoona vizuri.
Mimi nimeandika neno mchanga wewe unao neno mchaga.
Soma tena.

Umefanya editing

Sent from my SM-A205F using JamiiForums mobile app