(June 21, 2015 at 12:52 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: I want to know what, exactly, objective morals are.  Anybody got a list?

Serious question, becs:

What, if anything, would you say is always wrong - anywhere, any time, and under any circumstances?

(June 20, 2015 at 10:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 20, 2015 at 10:25 pm)whateverist Wrote: So I take it you agree it is ridiculous but don't see how anyone can take that away from church doctrine?

I'll let someone who is up on their scriptures make that link.  I find it pretty funny myself.

It is not being portrayed accurately.

Probably not. The emphasis in such a description is to put the very same events you see in an absurd light. It fits pretty well when God is understood as a literal personage albeit an eternal and all powerful one - provided you find such a notion as absurd as I do. If one just admitted they really did not understand the mystery of god and also admitted the bible can't change that .. then one's understanding of God would not be subject to this kind of juvenile portrayal. Unfortunately, the shoe fits.

I like the idea of calling Becca rexboccarox.

---

Catholic_Lady, what makes you think your version of morality now is the end game? If something we as a society in America consider moral today is immoral in 100 years, who is right?

(June 21, 2015 at 1:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Catholic_Lady, what makes you think your version of morality now is the end game? If something we as a society in America consider moral today is immoral in 100 years, who is right?

Mike-

This is not an answer to your question, but since you have joined the discussion (and because I think you are one of the few here who might actually read and appreciate this), I provide the following link to the section of the Catechism which deals with moral law:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950

(June 21, 2015 at 12:06 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Jesus had two wills. One human and one divine.

His divine will was united with the will of the Father in the plan for the redemption of mankind. His human will recoiled at the horror of what He was going to suffer.

Good old humble Christianity, always willing to admit to the inadequacy of human knowing to understand God. No, wait. That just isn't true, is it? You especially, Randy the Gold Medalist of mental gymnastics, think your insight is divinely inspired. You can't very well just let God speak to people directly, can you? Everyone knows God doesn't really do that anymore. So that is why you are needed to speak for god. That must make you feel down right special.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:22 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I already know that in their society they think that killing gays and burning rape victims is moral. But do you think they are wrong in believing that? Sounds like your answer is no. Is this correct?

(sorry, I don't mean to be annoying, just wanna be sure I fully understand)

Do I think they are wrong? Yes and no. Yes because my morality is different from theirs and no because they are doing what their morality tells them is right. Who am I to judge their morality when I can't prove that mine is more correct. I certainly don't think they're moral from within my moral framework. They don't think you and I are moral from within theirs (how dare you go out without covering you hair) and that is the point. Neither of us thinks the other is moral and neither of us can prove the other wrong because all morality is subjective.

Ok. I appreciate you having the patience with me here, so thank you.

So my take away from this in regards to your views is, there is no concrete, real right/wrong. There is only whatever a particular society deems fit. If a society thinks an act is moral, it is moral. If a society thinks an act is immoral, it's immoral.

Even something like setting a little girl on fire for getting raped cannot be considered objectively immoral, according to your views.

I obviously don't agree, but I can honestly say that I understand why someone who doesn't believe in a higher being would think this. In fact, it makes more sense that you do think this way if you don't believe in a higher power.

Fair enough. Thank you for the discussion on this, and I respect your views.

---

(June 21, 2015 at 1:22 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: If morality were truly objective, he would have had no basis for saying that they shouldn't stone her. He would have had no alternative morality to present in in place of the current morality, especially considering what they were doing was in line with what gawd said.

Well, first it obviously wasn't in line with what God said because Jesus is God and Jesus told them to stop.

Second, I'm really embarrassed by this but I still don't understand lol.

Youre saying that if morality was truly objective and those men were indeed in the wrong for stoning the woman, Jesus would have no basis for telling them they were in the wrong? I don't get it.

Randy Carson, do you understand?

---

(June 21, 2015 at 1:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I like the idea of calling Becca rexboccarox.

---

Oh gosh... I'm sorry

---

(June 21, 2015 at 1:33 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Catholic_Lady, what makes you think your version of morality now is the end game? If something we as a society in America consider moral today is immoral in 100 years, who is right?

Mike-

This is not an answer to your question, but since you have joined the discussion (and because I think you are one of the few here who might actually read and appreciate this), I provide the following link to the section of the Catechism which deals with moral law:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1950

YES. This is what I wanted to post but didn't know if it would be against the rules.

It is.

So basically you just showed me a flowchart for how God's law (which was somehow imperfect) was amended when Jesus came. If that doesn't speak to shifting moral law, then I don't know what does.

Also, C_L, do you care to answer my question with your own words, or does the flowchart from Jesus speak for you as well?

(June 21, 2015 at 1:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I like the idea of calling Becca rexboccarox.

---

Catholic_Lady, what makes you think your version of morality now is the end game? If something we as a society in America consider moral today is immoral in 100 years, who is right?

There are already plenty of things that American society considers moral that I completely disagree with because they go against Catholicism's views of morality. There is nothing that Catholicism considered moral 2000 years ago that it doesn't today. These laws will not change regardless of society's views.