Helluva first thread to slog through, CL. Thanks for your patience and politeness, refreshing compared to some of the folks that have come around recently.

(June 16, 2015 at 4:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Helluva first thread to slog through, CL.  Thanks for your patience and politeness, refreshing compared to some of the folks that have come around recently.

I know I said I wasn't coming back here till tomorrow but I just wanted to poke my head in real quick and say that I like you. 

So, OP..what have you learned?  How would you answer the op question now, after the discussion thusfar?

Any given act to be determined as ethical or unethical must:
1. The act must be committed against another actual person.
2. The intention of the actor must be known to another actual person. (where inference by conduct is considered known).
3. The act must be completed (where attempted is completion of the attempt).

Any given act to be determined as moral or immoral must:
1. The act must be committed against another actual or virtual person (You can lie to Wilson the Volleyball, but not to a Wilson volleyball).
2. The intention of the actor must be known to another actual or virtual person (whereby ones conscience may be considered a virtual other person).
3. The act must be completed.

(June 16, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Anima Wrote: Any given act to be determined as ethical or unethical must:
1.  The act must be committed against another actual person.
2.  The intention of the actor must be known to another actual person. (where inference by conduct is considered known).
3.  The act must be completed (where attempted is completion of the attempt).

Any given act to be determined as moral or immoral must:
1.  The act must be committed against another actual or virtual person (You can lie to Wilson the Volleyball, but not to a Wilson volleyball).
2.  The intention of the actor must be known to another actual or virtual person (whereby ones conscience may be considered a virtual other person).
3.  The act must be completed.

So the catholic church is unethical.  Thank you for clarifying that.

(June 16, 2015 at 5:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 4:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Helluva first thread to slog through, CL.  Thanks for your patience and politeness, refreshing compared to some of the folks that have come around recently.

I know I said I wasn't coming back here till tomorrow but I just wanted to poke my head in real quick and say that I like you. 

Don't jump to conclusions quite yet! 

(June 16, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(June 16, 2015 at 6:02 pm)Anima Wrote: Any given act to be determined as ethical or unethical must:
1.  The act must be committed against another actual person.
2.  The intention of the actor must be known to another actual person. (where inference by conduct is considered known).
3.  The act must be completed (where attempted is completion of the attempt).

Any given act to be determined as moral or immoral must:
1.  The act must be committed against another actual or virtual person (You can lie to Wilson the Volleyball, but not to a Wilson volleyball).
2.  The intention of the actor must be known to another actual or virtual person (whereby ones conscience may be considered a virtual other person).
3.  The act must be completed.

So the catholic church is unethical.  Thank you for clarifying that.

Not sure how you got there from what I wrote. As I stated in order for a given act to be determined as ethical or unethical.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I must admit, I have not opened reading material and I apologize.  I have been very overwhelmed trying to answer all of you and have not had the time. If you want to tell me something, it is better if you cut and paste or if you put in your own words. If you post a link I probably won't get to it.

Well, I had thought you were interested. Forgive my misapprehension.

I 100% agree that just because I haven't heard doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are some messed up people out there who call themselves Christians. Fortunately, they are in the very small minority.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:11 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm not sure how it still counts as cherry picking when I say I feel the *whole* Old Testament is written in allegorical form, rather than just the bad stuff....

But if that is how you feel then I can respect your opinion and move on.

It isn't my "opinion" -- it is a fact that you are selecting one part of the Bible to read literally, and selecting another to read figuratively, and that is cherry-picking. You like the NT because it comports to the morality that you're already bringing to the table.

As for moving on, I don't see any great interest in discussing with yet another believer why their particular view is correct, given the fact that you're not bringing anything to the table except "these are my beliefs". I don't see why your moral sensibility has any privilege or gravitas, and it's clearly just as relative as mine. The difference between you and I is that I'm responsible enough to own my own moral sensibilities, and adapt them to what I consider good, whereas you adopt the one that seems closest to your views, and try to ignore the parts which cause you mental dissonance.

I think your approach to morality is shallow, and I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Well, the difference between priests and the rest is that the rest don't claim to be Men of God. Why does this have to be explained to you?

With moral authority comes moral responsibility. Arguing that "others do it too!" is no excuse for men who claim to have Christian morality as part of their job description. Sickening, just sickening, the way Catholics fall over themselves to avoid the obvious issues of moral responsibility.

Tell us again how your god is the fount of morality. What a shame that this majestic god of yours cannot inspire even his own holy men to behave in a morally upright manner.

(June 16, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I did not "examine" them, but from what I knew about them, I knew they were not quite right.

So you didn't study them, but are still comfortable with your uninformed decision. Got it.