Thomist

Do we have any economists here?

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#15

I would still wait. The Church has always given extrabiblical moral arguments for traditional sexual morality, ones that you don't need to a member of any particular religion to agree with. I think they're convincing on their own.

Can't sleep.

I don't know what to say about this except that it seems that it's a highly culture-specific issue. In my country, living at home just doesn't have the same connotation. In fact, it's very common for people who get married to have one spouse move into the other person and his parents' house. The place I grew up in, almost all houses had at least 3 generations living in them, sometimes 4.

Welcome!

I thought some of you might like this article: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/05/lena-dunhams-inviolable-self Any thoughts?

I need to start going to bed earlier.

Welcome! Enjoy your time here.

Just started reading The Benedict Option by Rod Dreher.

No, morality is an objective feature of the world and natural law morality is the only sensible ethical system (aside from appeals to biblical special revelation/scripture, which is compatible and complementary with it anyway). But it can be hard to see that if you abandon classical metaphysics and embrace a mechanistic view of nature like the early modern philosophers (e.g. Descartes) did. All the moral confusion we are witnessing now is a direct result of the abandonment of an essentially Aristotelian worldview (perfected by medievals like Thomas Aquinas), especially the final causes. If nature is nothing but random, directionless, purposeless particles, then it certainly becames hard or impossible to build an absolutist ethics, but if the world is filled with purpose and teleology from top to bottom (which it is), then it follows logically. Besides, even modern science is basically incomprehensible without something like an Aristotelian worldview. Such basic notions as regular causation that science itself presupposes and takes for granted don't really make sense under the modern worldview, unless you do like Newton and other early scientists and make a direct theological appeal to "laws of nature" that God uses to impose order on otherwise dead, inert matter (interestingly enough, talking about "laws of nature" is now something secularists, completely unaware of its theological origin, do precisely to explain why you don't in fact need God, which is hilarious). Not the right approach in my view, but it would take more than one post to explain all the reasons. The roots of disbelief in God, of materialism in philosophy of mind, and of ludicrous moral systems (whether utilitarianism, Kantianism or subjectivism) can all be traced back to the early moderns' rejection of the classical, essentialist, teleological worldview, started way back in Ancient Greece and painstakingly developed further by the medieval Scholastics. Once you get rid of that, most importantly of the Aristotelian final cause (which is one of the four causes), you open the door to philosophical nonsense and we're seeing the full-blown effects of it now.

How would you define immoral plot line?

Thanks everyone.

Yeah, holidays. : - ) Thanks!

Is anyone ever on chat?