What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Catholicism allows you to cherry pick, you are being called to account for why you have chosen a particular set of stories over another as literal truth relative to allegory.   Some other things in the OT matter...like sin and generational curses.  Don't you think?  This "god" fella is from the OT, he matters.

A catholic should not cherry pick catholic teaching. So as long as you still believe in Catholic teaching, you are ok. Whether or not you literally believe Moses spoke to a burning bush, or Eve was tempted by a snake, or Jonah was inside a whale for 3 days, is not important, so long as you adhere to Catholic teaching which is made up of the teachings of Christ, many of which contradict the OT. I have already explained why I don't consider this "cherry picking" but I can see I have not done a good enough job of explaining myself.

Catholic teaching -is- cherry picking...lol.  I'm okay even if I don't believe in their teachings, and so are you.  The teachings of christ are no improvement upon the OT, in my opinion. Certainly no moral improvement. The entire moral enterprise is turned into a complete farce in the NT. At least in the OT...people got what was coming to them. The NT god forgives the rapist but condemns the atheist, the NT god is not concerned with your moral actions, only your loyalty. The NT god, and this is truly disturbing.....asks you to accept that another be punished for your own misdeeds, and that somehow this will excorcize your culpability in them.

Theres no point in being moral at all, if loyalty is more effective, more efficient, and will suffice. The whole thing becomes a show for the dolts.

[Catholic_Lady]

You've gotten flack for playing -brinksmanship- with allegory.  You've used it as an excuse, rather than an explanation.  The things you feel are morally questionable are allegory.  You're about as much of a believer as I am.

Let me try to explain it better for you then, Rhythm. I hope I can be more clear this time.

Before Jesus came, people followed the Old Testament. Jesus came and taught us new things that we didn't know before. Many of the things he taught contradicted things in the Old Testament. He Himself, as a person, contradicted how God was depicted sometimes in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God was, at times, depicted like a very harsh judge. He was depicted as an entity who told us to kill others, told us to have slaves, told us to have multiple wives, etc. Jesus came, and was completely different from the entity that was depicted in many parts of Old Testament. He told us to not throw stones at anyone. He told us to turn the other cheeck to those who hurt us. He told us to love our one and only spouses.

If we believe that Jesus is God, what this shows us is that what we *thought* God was like wasn't entirely accurate or complete. If we believe that Jesus is God, we believe that He came to set the record straight about Himself (being God) and about the correct distinction between morality and immorality.

You cannot believe in the literal definition of the Old Testament and the New Testament at the same time. You cannot do this because they contradict each other sooo much. So you have to pick one. If you are Christian, you will pick the words of Jesus in the New Testament.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am sorry that so many of you are having a hard time with understanding/accepting the notion that the OT is written allegorically, especially when what Jesus teaches is so contradicting to the God that is depicted in the OT.

I don't have a problem with asserting its allegorical nature; I think it's obvious that things like both creation stories are each allegories, as is the story of the Fall.

What I have a problem with is you deciding that one part of the Bible is literal, another part allegorical, and it just so happens that you regard the really evil shit attributed to your deity as allegorical. I'm sure that's a coincidence, right?

No, it isn't. You regard those parts as allegory because you don't want to think that your god could be amoral, or even positively evil. And in essence, you're begging the question when you argue this case for allegory, because what is happening is that you are using your moral sensibility to guide your judgement on what is allegorical.

It's sloppy thinking and tremendously weak argumentation.

[robvalue]

Catholic Lady: How can you possibly know you have made the right choice between OT and NT? If you pick the one that seems "more moral" then you've made a subjective moral judgement, yes?

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me try to explain it better for you then, Rhythm. I hope I can be more clear this time. 

I appreciate the attempt....perhaps, though, there is no clarity to be had?

Before Jesus came, people followed the Old Testament. Jesus came and taught us new things that we didn't know before. Many of the things he taught contradicted things in the Old Testament. He Himself, as a person, contradicted how God was depicted sometimes in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament God was, at times, depicted like a very harsh judge. He was depicted as an entity who told us to kill others, told us to have slaves, told us to have multiple wives, etc. Jesus came, and was completely different from the entity that was depicted in many parts of Old Testament. He told us to not throw stones at anyone. He told us to turn the other cheeck to those who hurt us. He told us to love our one and only spouses. 

"Jesus" also told us about thought crimes, threatens us with hell, and asks that we accept the blood sacrifice of another in order to remove the curse his father placed upon us.   I'm just not very impressed.  No one needed the advice given in the NT to live a moral life, people lived moral lives wiothout it for a very long time, and people still do lead moral lives without it.   

If we believe that Jesus is God, what this shows us is that what we *thought* God was like wasn't entirely accurate or complete. If we believe that Jesus is God, we believe that He came to set the record straight about Himself (being God) and about the correct distinction between morality and immorality.

and in setting that record straight he upped the ante on immoral things attributed to him.  Again..... thought crimes, hell, vicarious redemption.  

You cannot believe in the literal definition of the Old Testament and the New Testament at the same time. You cannot do this because they contradict each other sooo much. So you have to pick one. If you are Christian, you will pick the words of Jesus in the New Testament.

The trouble is that, as a christian, one -depends- upon the other.  No curses, no need to remove them.  All that nonsense in the garden(just for starters)...that can't be allegory, or your boy aint christ...get it? You've been picking the words of jesus, in the NT....and so have I. Seems as if god continues to do and say terrible things. Wheres the contradiction in that?

[Catholic_Lady]

Hi Parkers Tan. I am not sure what you are referring to. What point am I avoiding?

The point that you yourself are a moral relativist by dint of the fact that actions ascribed to your god would in humans be described as evil -- yet you assert that your god is the font of absolute and objective morality.  That is a pretty big contradiction there.

Which actions are you reffering to? I believe I have already cleared this up multiple times...

And I actually did address the "evil my god commits" a couple of times now.

Only by saying that you think the Bible got that wrong.  That's simply you discarding the parts you don't like, so that you don't have to think any deeper about the matter. You aren't addressing anything with such an approach; you're papering over a contradiction.

Parker, this is part of being a Christian. A lot of the teachings of Christ contradict the teachings in the Old Testament. Also, part of the reason He came was to set the record straight about morality and about God. He would not have had the need to do this if everything was perfectly explained in the Old Testament. He also would not have contradicted it, and acknowledged that he was contradicting it. What you describe as "ignoring parts of the bible" is simply Christianity. We believe first and foremore in the words of Jesus and that He came to correct what wasn't right. One cannot believe in both at the same time because they contradict each other.

Hm, someone else on here already confirmed that that is what they meant...

I was responding to your post; I hadn't seen theirs. You'd do well to read those links anyway.  You clearly have a mistaken understanding of both ideas.

Gotcha. I appreciate the link, but I'd rather discuss it here rather than be given reading material. ;-)
Why not tell me yourself and we can talk about it?

I can explain it to you if you want. I do have an answer for it.

I'm all ears ... but if you say that it's because of your faith, that will be circular argumentation and disregarded. "I believe I'm doing right because the god I believe in is right and I'm following his prescripts" is simply moving your bald assertion up a level.

I agree. But I forgot what the question was lol. Can you ask me again? I've got my hands full here replying to all these posts!

Fair enough. I guess you are right that I can never claim to know what I would be like if I was something that I am not. But I would like to think I'd believe those things were still immoral.

Perhaps. But the fact that other humans in those societies regard their actions as moral rather undercuts your point that morality is not subjective. It is both subjective (dependent on who is making the judgement) and relative (to the circumstances obtaining at the time of the act).

---

Here is where we disagree, my friend.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They contradict each other many times, so I would find this hard to reconcile. Jesus specifically talked about how awful it is to hurt children and how few things upset Him more. If the description of God was 100% correct and complete in the Old Testament, there would be no reason for Jesus to come and teach us differently.

Has the thought occurred to you that it is the OT that is accurate and the NT that got the touch-ups? You have no standard for determining which one is more accurate outside of your own emotional inclinations. On that basis, preferring either book over the other is, ahem, testament to the fact of moral relativity.

You are choosing the god who most closely resembles your own moral sense. You are cherry-picking. Don't worry, every Christian I've ever seen has to do that, because as you yourself acknowledge, that book is ridden with contradictions. The difference between you and me is that when you see the contradictions, you ignore the point that offends your morality, whereas when I see those contradictions, I realize that one of the premises must be incorrect.

[Aoi Magi]

---

Sorry that I won't be able to read through the 15 pages of discussion. But replying to OP, good isn't "universal" because the concept of "good" and "evil" is man-made. For example, you mentioned "murder" as universal truth, however murder IS part of nature, and nature doesn't see it as good or bad. Animals have to murder each other in order to survive, even non-living matter will need to murder each other to make progress, like galaxies swallowing up other galaxies. We determine what is good or bad through our own perspective, and yes, it is subjective. Let's say in our society murder is wrong, but what if a psychopath tries to murder your children? Would killing her in self-defence as a last resort still be wrong? When a lion kills a deer, from the lion's perspective it is doing good because it is ensuring the survival of it's pride, but from the deer's perspective it is evil... from our perspective it is neither good nor evil because that is how nature works.

---

Thank you for the response, Aoi.

Killing in self defense is not wrong, I agree with you there. What would you say about societies that believe killing is good? Let's use Isis as a current example. They are a whole society and culture of people who believe that killing infidels is good. Would you say that since they believe this is moral, they are thus acting morally? Or do you think they are definitively acting immorally even if they believe otherwise. I think my takeaway from this discussion is that most atheists do not believe in moral truths.

The keyword here would be what I think. From my perspective, yes it is wrong, but from their perspective it is not. As I said before too, morality depends on situation and perspective, and thus it IS NOT an absolute universal truth.

Your takeaway is wrong, almost every atheist I know believes in morality, they just don't believe that their morality is the absolute truth or universally correct.

[Catholic_Lady]

I understand what subjective morality is. I just don't believe that morality itself is subjective. 

You clearly didn't when you made your remarks about what it would -mean- if morality were subjective.  Have you had an epiphany, or have we helped?

How about you tell me how my remark is incorrect and I'll confirm or deny whether I have understood it better? I believe I have, but would rather double check...

As for the OT stuff about, it's not my own moral sense. It's what my religion teaches, and it's what Jesus Himself taught.

No, it isn't.  Take a little credit for the work you've done to your own theology.  Your religion isn't a decoder ring either.

Well, I would beg to differ...

---

You don't have that either....... you have stories, and so did they.  Do you do what the stories say because the stories say so, or because you think that what the stories say are good?  If the stories say something that you don;t think is good (all of that wonderful allegory)..would you do it just because you saw it in the story?  To be honest, the shittiest part of the story is the NT, not the OT.  How did the NT escape the moral filter you so ruthlessly butcher the OT with?

I'm Christian. I follow the teaching of Christ. What parts of the NT bother you so much?

[Longhorn]

Lady, Jesus was the one who introduced the concept of hell

The god of the OT is a cruel monster, but aside from the multi-generation curses he might cast, the torment generally ends with the poor mortal's death

But your hippie prince of peace brings with him the concept of torturing the sinner FOR ETERNITY even after he's dead, with no possibility of appeal

Not to mention the horrific totalitarian idea of thought crime, a law that is impossible to follow yet must be obeyed on pain of eternal postmortem torment

Is THAT GUY your moral teacher? Is that the good guy here? Because he sounds like a foaming at the mouth psycho to me