My views on objective morality

[Tiberius]

For CL, it is an actual live person. Just a matter of consistency.

I dunno, I feel like Catholic dogma gets complicated when you try to call God a "person", perhaps "being" is the right word. However on that point I'm fairly certain it's considered impossible for Catholics to even attempt to hold God to a certain standard; it's God's standard in the first place, and intended for humans only (it doesn't apply to animals), so presumably the Catholic argument would be that God can pretty much do whatever he wants without violating morality, because morality is something to be subjected upon human beings. There's also the argument that anything God does is inherently moral by the very nature of God and objective morality. It gets confusing very quickly.

[GrandizerII]

For CL, it is an actual live person. Just a matter of consistency.

I'd like to know where she said god is an actual live person. Again, this is like trying to hold CL responsible and accountable for the actions or inactions of god. How is this even remotely fair to her?

God is a person in the Catholic view. It's not fair, but that is not my fault. The issue is in her reasoning.

[Joods]

To be fair about it, I don't see anyone still passing judgement on CL, and a few of you are protecting pets of yours from all criticism as a means of building political clout around here. I still like CL, and I hope she comes back, but she should not be made by any sanctimonious assholes on a power play to believe her comments are above critical analysis, and she opened a serious can of worms with this thread.

Cathy is NOT a pet that needs protecting. I think that she's handled her own pretty damn well considering. She's been here since June of last year and honestly, she's always been able to hold her own. However, she is still my friend. If I, and others here can clearly see that she's being ganged up on, then yes - true friends are going to step in and have a say so on it. It's what friends do. They help each other.  Some of you got called out for your continued barrage of attacks on her. Can't handle that? There's the door.  I will always come to the defense of a friend - theist or atheist - if they are being ganged up on by others who want to go beyond what is a reasonable debate and start accusing someone of something - whether if is a belief or not. Huggy is another example. He was called a racist in another thread and I came to his defense. Some people here seem to think they are above and beyond and better than everyone else and can do and say anything they want with no regards to other people's feelings and will cross several lines just to do it. If people have a problem with me coming to the defense of a friend, then block me and be done with it. That doesn't make me, or anyone else defending a friend, sanctimonious assholes on a power play either. Furthermore this has nothing to do with building political clout. Where you even get that is beyond me.

[GrandizerII]

For CL, it is an actual live person. Just a matter of consistency.

I dunno, I feel like Catholic dogma gets complicated when you try to call God a "person", perhaps "being" is the right word. However on that point I'm fairly certain it's considered impossible for Catholics to even attempt to hold God to a certain standard; it's God's standard in the first place, and intended for humans only (it doesn't apply to animals), so presumably the Catholic argument would be that God can pretty much do whatever he wants without violating morality, because morality is something to be subjected upon human beings. There's also the argument that anything God does is inherently moral by the very nature of God and objective morality. It gets confusing very quickly.

True, three persons in one being, according to the Catholic faith, but we are made in the image of God as persons (in other words, like him).

So ok, if that's the case, using that reasoning about God, why not extend this to other entities as well? What is it about being human that makes a human being standing by and watching someone else harm a third person be morally wrong that they be held accountable for not stopping the offender if they had the power to do so?

If it's something to do with rationality or having a moral sense or whatever, then why should God be treated any different (since he has those as well)?

[LadyForCamus]

Take it easy, I NEVER commented on her appearance. Not once. Let's not start lumping everyone together here. I'm not going to take the blame for something I didn't even fucking say, Nymph.

Did I ever say you did? My response quoted Mister Agenda purely on the cyber bullying point; it wasn't meant as a response to you, or to even involve you, but merely to add that her taking down her avatar was also likely a result of the bullying (not yours, just generally).

I thought you were, Tib. I apologize. I'm starting to knee-jerk react here. I think I need to take a breather.

[IATIA]

I can't spend every hour on the internet.

Well then, what good are you?  I suppose you are going to use the excuse that you have a life or something ... hunh.  

[Mystical]

Good on you for cyber-bullying her enough to get her to agree with anything you say rather than waste her time trying to defend herself. You're a credit to something, I'm sure.

That and I'm sure she removed her avatar based on comments made in this thread regarding her appearance and whether or not she was actually a woman. It's petty to attack someone based on their appearance when that has nothing to do with the subject.

I admit I have not read back as far as shit slinging; I've only seen the recent correspondences between Lady Camus, Mr. Hanky Spanky, and CL. I will be reviewing the entire thread and report my findings here and in our mod section. 

For anyone who doubts CL is a woman, a legit female as she portrays, and also not a sock puppet--I take Tiberius' word as sufficient evidence, and so should you all. There is no question, on this issue.

[Ryantology]

Sometimes justice really is more important than somebody's precious feelings, and arrogant special pleading should not be indefinitely overlooked just because the theist in question is cute and smooth. This means sometimes good people need to get their hands dirty.

When I look at this thread, I see what is supposed to be casual conversation between adults with free time on their hands, not a battle in the greater war for justice against the depredations of religion.

A couple of years here taught me that you're not going to change any minds by (metaphorically) bashing their skulls until things re-arrange to your liking. Which I should have known, because I was a believing Christian once and passionate insults had nothing to do with why I'm not anymore.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Sometimes justice really is more important than somebody's precious feelings, and arrogant special pleading should not be indefinitely overlooked just because the theist in question is cute and smooth. This means sometimes good people need to get their hands dirty.

When I look at this thread, I see what is supposed to be casual conversation between adults with free time on their hands, not a battle in the greater war for justice against the depredations of religion.

A couple of years here taught me that you're not going to change any minds by (metaphorically) bashing their skulls until things re-arrange to your liking. Which I should have known, because I was a believing Christian once and passionate insults had nothing to do with why I'm not anymore.

Has there been a secret meeting to build straw men against those who dared criticise CL for the statements which she did in fact make? That one smells of rotting straw which a troll took a dump in - nobody insults you by demanding that you take a hard, honest look at the words you say! People don't tend to like that, but it's perfectly fair when you say something which offends, intentional or not.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

[quote='Tiberius' pid='1221599' dateline='1457546696']

I admit I have not read back as far as shit slinging; I've only seen the recent correspondences between Lady Camus, Mr. Hanky Spanky, and CL. I will be reviewing the entire thread and report my findings here and in our mod section. 

For anyone who doubts CL is a woman, a legit female as she portrays, and also not a sock puppet--I take Tiberius' word as sufficient evidence, and so should you all. There is no question, on this issue.

Hey, Kitty, don't you be sticking that comment on me - it wasn't me who raised doubt on whether CL is in fact female, which is the one thing which anyone said of her which was truly out of line! It's a whole different issue than the fact that she's been getting special protection, no matter how ignorant her remarks have been. That was Benny.