(June 16, 2015 at 12:23 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 12:06 am)Jenny A Wrote: I'm perfectly aware that Christians aren't Jews and that Jesus was rather ambiguous about the law in the Old Testament.  But the God of the New and Old Testaments is supposed to be the same one.  And in the OT god "really" required certain things.   And we really think those things are immoral now.  Do you believe the OT misrepresented god's views?

You are correct that we believe God was always the same. It was the people's perception of Him that was not perfectly right, including those who wrote the OT.   I believe the vast majority of the Old Testament to be allegorical rather than true events written literally. I am aware that a lot of Christians and Christian denominations take the OT quite literally, but I cannot speak for them. Only for myself as a Catholic.

Fair enough.

Perhaps "god" is allegory?  How do you know which parts are and which parts aren't...I wonder?

(June 16, 2015 at 12:12 am)Rhythm Wrote: -Which is precisely what we see.  Subjective morality doesn't mean that you have to -agree- with the moralities of all of those societies.  It simply accepts that what people perceive as moral (as right, as good..like the chopping of clits, or the tips of dicks..for that matter) is subjective.  

I don't agree with those moralities anymore than you do, or anymore than I agree with -yours- or you agree with mine.  That is precisely -why- it is subjective.  That's all that subjective morality means in the first place.

Subjective means that it can be moral for one person, but not moral for another person. What I was saying is that I believe some things are either moral or they aren't. Kind of like an animal is either a dog or it isn't. There is no "it's a dog if you think it's a dog, but if you don't think it's a dog then it isn't one." Morality is something that is actually a reality rather than just a subjective thought or idea that can change from person to person.

Right, that's what it means, and that's what it is.  You and I -alone- would demonstrate the truth of this statement. 

Some things are moral or they aren't - to you-.  This is the nature of ones personal opinions and in no way contradictory to the notion of subjective morality.  You should not be surprised to find that others have different opinions...they are different people with a different framework and different experiences. If morality were an animal (like a dog, in your example) than perhaps this line of reasoning would yield a description closer to truth, but since it isn't...it won't. Or maybe it does, and morality is furry or not furry like dogs are furry or not furry? If you want morality to be some real thing, rather than a thought, you;ll need to find some morality that is a real thing, not a thought...and you'll need to explain why everytime we look at an example of morality it turns out to be a "not real thing" (I guess is the alternative?)...a thought. No one has ever plucked any morality out of the air, it doesn't grow on trees.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:20 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 12:02 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I just want to make a general statement about that since it keeps being brought up so much:

Remember,  I am a Christian, not a Jew.

I cannot speak for Judaism, but Christianity is defined by the New Testament - the Gospels, the teachings of Christ. The OT was not perfect, and neither were the people's view of God back then. That is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is *really* like and to set the record straight on some things. While the OT talks about an eye for an eye, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While the OT justified stoning or killing in some instances, Jesus stopped a whole crowd of people from stoning a woman.

I am not saying any of this to "convert" anyone. I know none of you believe in any of it. I'm just saying it to clear up some misconceptions you may have about my beliefs and my religion. If anything, so that you can be better equipped to debunk Catholicism if you so feel the need to do so.  ;-)

This is a silly objection.  The god of the OT and the god of the NT are the same god.  Either morality changed over time -- indicating that it is malleable -- or your god has acted immorally.  Your personal religion is irrelevant, because you worship the god of the Bible.  All the Bible. So far as I know, the Catholic Church includes the OT in its holy text. Saying that you don't is probably not something you'd say to your priest, I'm betting.

See my response a couple posts up. ;-)

And yes, we do include the bible, of course. But we also know that the bible is not the end all be all of our faith. There are non Catholic Christians who think Catholics are all going to Hell for that lol, but that is partly what sets us apart.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I do find the notion that morality is completely relative and completely subjective, a deeply flawed one. And I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as a person who really does try to think logically. Even if I were an atheist, I don't think I could ever make sense of the notion that morality is always subjective.

The argument from incredulity cuts no ice. You cannot even defend your own morality, instead preferring to avoid the point. You've yet to demonstrate your assertion that morality is objective and universal. You've yet to explain why an evil your god commits is only evil when humans commit it.

Given that, while I don't for a moment doubt your inability to conceive of moral relativity and subjectivity, I find that inability to be entirely unconvincing.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This would mean that as long as a particular society or culture thinks something is moral, it is.

Not necessarily. There are several different views on the matter, not one oversimplified view. You should perhaps read up on the topic before you opine:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-...ivism.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

(June 16, 2015 at 12:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I could never see killing infidel children or burning alive women who were rapped or cutting off a 12 year old's clitoris as ever being moral.

And that is because you cannot see it. You have to explain why your moral sensibility is privileged.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Regardless of whether or not that particular culture thought it was, I would still believe those things are intrinsically immoral and so it would follow that I would still believe in some sort of moral truth.

You say that, but the fact is that you weren't raised in a culture that held those acts to be good. That you find such acts immoral is no surprise.

That still doesn't explain why your morality is privileged.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:29 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Subjective means that it can be moral for one person, but not moral for another person. What I was saying is that I believe some things are either moral or they aren't. Kind of like an animal is either a dog or it isn't. There is no "it's a dog if you think it's a dog, but if you don't think it's a dog then it isn't one." Morality is something that is actually a reality rather than just a subjective thought or idea that can change from person to person.

Your problem is that you do not reason logically.

You are attempting to make comparisons were there are none to be made.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:15 am)dyresand Wrote:

(June 15, 2015 at 11:39 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

If you wander what is good then look at the middle east and religious laws and how they treat woman and look at the society there in genera.
for one its barbaric compared to the first world and if you want a good example of what god would deem good the middle east is a prime example of 
what is good to god of the bible.

Hm? The Middle East is mostly Muslim, not Christian/Catholic.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:32 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: See my response a couple posts up. ;-)

And yes, we do include the bible, of course. But we also know that the bible is not the end all be all of our faith. There are non Catholic Christians who think Catholics are all going to Hell for that lol, but that is partly what sets us apart.

Forgive my looking askance, but cherry-picking is nothing earth-shaking. It simply means that you're entitling yourself to pick and choose which aspects of your faith you will abide.

(June 16, 2015 at 12:33 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 12:15 am)dyresand Wrote: If you wander what is good then look at the middle east and religious laws and how they treat woman and look at the society there in genera.
for one its barbaric compared to the first world and if you want a good example of what god would deem good the middle east is a prime example of 
what is good to god of the bible.

Hm? The Middle East is mostly Muslim, not Christian/Catholic.

You assume that muslims (and islam) are not pleasing to god? That they do not follow the divine moral commands set forth by that god? They think they are, they certainly strive to do so. They are, forgive me...a bit more committed to god and to that cause than a catholic, in my estimation.