What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Beg all you like, it won't help.  What you would have to do is -demonstrate-.  Would you accept such a response from me, would you find it persuasive?  I doubt it.

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

The biggest problem I have, the reason that I couldn't be a catholic, the reason that I have a moral objection to christianity -even if it were all true-? Vicarious redemption. Hell and thoughtcrimes swiftly on the heels, but mostly the vicarious redemption.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Thank you all for the responses. I see several of you bringing up instances of slavery, murder, etc from the Old Testament and trying to say that if I believe in God and the bible, then I must believe that God, at least at one point, considered those things good.

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.  ;-)

That might sound good but it's pure BS.  Remember, in the Old Testament the God character interacted directly with all of the major characters.  He told them what to do and how to do it without intermediaries.  

The Jesus character is the one who corrupted things because he put his own slant on what was acceptable.  In the Old Testament when the God character told his minions to gut and roast everyone in town he didn't want them to show them any mercy.  He got really ticked when his minions got soft and spared someone.  

When Jesus stopped the crowd from stoning the woman he broke the First Commandment because the woman was worshiping another deity, probably Jesus himself.

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol. It is not "choosing which aspects of my faith to abide." That IS my faith, in its entirety. Can you specify what exactly it is you are referring to? I'm pretty sure I know but I just want to make sure.

I already have done so.  If you aren't sure, you're not reading closely. You're asserting that the OT is mistaken about some things so that you don't have to defend the fact that you worship a god who was fine with slavery and even beating slaves who were not up to par; you're wanting to avoid defending the passages where he calls out for the brains of infants to be bashed out upon the rocks simply because of their race. You're wanting to distance yourself from the fact your god is fine with punishments going seven generations deep, meaning that innocent children will suffer as a result of their ancestors, whom they had no way of choosing.

You are cherry-picking your Bible by favoring the NT over the OT because despite your preferences, the god is the same God of Abraham, and in the Old Testament he is clearly a vicious son of a bitch who is unworthy of worship.

That is why you're being so vague and cagey about which parts you accept and which you reject. You've placed your faith in a book that you yourself admit has errors.

You're picking your own morality ("I like the New Testament God, he's a decent guy!") but refusing to acknowledge that your choice is every bit as subjective as anyone else's, because it is admittedly based on interpretation and elision.

I am claiming the Old Testament is inaccurate and incomplete because I am a Christian, and Christ taught some things differently than how the OT says it. That's the simplest way I can put it for ya. I "pick" my morality in the sense that I chose to be a Christian Catholic. I believe the morality in that religion is correct. I did not make it up on my own.

I am sorry if you feel I am being vague, but I don't know how to better explain myself to you. I have tried explaining as best I can and I can't think of any instance of me being vague. Your comment though, does shows how little you understand about Catholicism. You say that I put my faith on a book when Catholicism actually *teaches* that the bible is not the end all be all of the faith. It actually *teaches* us not to rely solely on the bible or to put our faith solely on the bible.

---

Christianity is defined by myth.  Nothing else.

I respect your opinion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scapegoating moralities aren't what I would call "correct"....... but that's how subjective morality works, so, meh? Where you see grace and virtue I see depravity and degradation.

I am claiming the Old Testament is inaccurate and incomplete because I am a Christian

Many christians claim otherwise. Whatever reason you have for doing it, it isn't -because you're a christian-....so are they.

[robvalue]

The very fact that you said we have to choose between the OT and NT blows objective morality out the water right there. We are choosing and judging, even if there are only two options. How can either a Jew or a Christian know who is right if the only source for morality is at least half wrong?

As a Christian, you're rejecting the majority of the bible in fact. The NT is small by comparison.

You either made a subjective moral choice, or agreed with someone else's subjective moral choice.

If we already know what is moral, we don't need the bible or Christianity at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

And I have already listed them multiple times. But you haven't cleared anything up about why you reject my listed examples. You've only said that you regard the OT as allegory, but ignored my question when I asked you why.

I already know that you cherry-pick the Bible. I'm asking how you justify your particular choices. You have avoided that question assiduously.

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.

I already know about Christians ignoring the inconvenient parts of the Bible, thanks. I am asking you to justify your particular choices.

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 already have. If you're not going to read my posts, please just let me know, so I won't waste my time.

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!

Pay attention:

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.

Here is where we disagree, my friend.

Your disagreement is not with me. Your disagreement is with reality. You're welcome to your own opinions; you are not entitled to your own facts.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think morality comes from the fact that life (especially human life) is sacred. And life is sacred because God made it sacred, and told us that it is sacred.

Would that be the same god who invented death, and issued it as punishment to every human who has every lived for a "sin" committed only by the first two? Would that be the same god who created Kaposi's Sarcoma, viral pneumonia, earthquakes, asteroids which wipe out 99% of all living things, and so on?

Tell us more about how he holds life to be sacred.

Death is only the beginning of eternal life, in my belief. So to me, there is nothing wrong about natural death, in and of itself. My religion does not teach anything about God issuing death as punishment, so I cannot tell you about that. I believe natural disasters and diseases are a result of nature and the world we live in. I don't believe that God is a micromanager. I believe in evolution. I believe that He created the concept and let nature takes its coarse. Even if that nature results in the end of our life here on earth and the beginning of our life elsewhere.

And so hurting/destroying something sacred is always objectively and definitively wrong.

If you're against killing in any circumstance, why do you give your god a pass?  He's the greatest killer in history, according to your own Bible.

This question does not apply to me. I am a Christian, and so I do not believe that God "killed" anyone.

That's why I believe we must treat all life with dignity and respect. Because living things have a certain dignity to them.

I gather that you don't take antibiotics, then? Do you offer the shark your arm when you're paddling in the surf?

No, not all life is sacred.  Your own actions give the lie to this platitude, lovely though it sounds.

Do you have any children?

I also state that human life in particular is more important. So it is not immoral to kill a bacteria for the sake of a human being. And no, I do not. Though I hopefully will soon.

And that is why I believe we must treat humans especially well above plants and animals, because God made our lives at a higher level than those of other living things of the earth.

I really don't care about your superstitions.  We're talking about morality.

I thought you asked me how I rationalized my morality? This whole thing was supposed to be a response to you. I am sorry, I thought you wanted to know.

---

Parkers, I will answer your questions. What are your questions?

Haven't you been reading my posts? Go back through the thread and you'll see them.  You asking me to repeat myself is getting tiresome.

I think I've already answered this by saying I don't believe the stories in the OT actually happened literally as they are written. Meaning, I don't believe things like God telling Moses that he will kill the first born of the Egyptian families. I don't believe any of this "behavior" ever happened.

Based on what?

Sorry I missed them. I got a lot on my hands, trying to respond to everyone. I'm not the fastest typer....

Based on the teachings of Jesus and the type of man (God) He was.

---

Why is contradiction a problem?  I have many contradictory attributes.  You probably do to.  God can't?  There were once, btw, christians who thought that the god of the NT was not the same god as the god of the OT, that NT god was here to save us from OT god.  "Jesus" -different- teachings are those which contain thought crimes, hell, and vicarious redemption.  These three are the least moral teachings in the bible, so far as I'm concerned.  Different, but not better.

(an atheist can believe in or hold to any moral truth, being an atheist has nothing to do with moral truths, the only sort of truths one cannot hold and simultaneously be an atheist are those "truths" which stem from a god)

I believe God is perfect so I don't believe He contradicts Himself.

---

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.

In that sense, rhythm, all beliefs are "cherry picking." You evaluate and separate fact from fiction. And of course people are going to disagree, but that's what makes the world what it is. And I'm ok with that.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I already have done so.  If you aren't sure, you're not reading closely. You're asserting that the OT is mistaken about some things so that you don't have to defend the fact that you worship a god who was fine with slavery and even beating slaves who were not up to par; you're wanting to avoid defending the passages where he calls out for the brains of infants to be bashed out upon the rocks simply because of their race. You're wanting to distance yourself from the fact your god is fine with punishments going seven generations deep, meaning that innocent children will suffer as a result of their ancestors, whom they had no way of choosing.

You are cherry-picking your Bible by favoring the NT over the OT because despite your preferences, the god is the same God of Abraham, and in the Old Testament he is clearly a vicious son of a bitch who is unworthy of worship.

That is why you're being so vague and cagey about which parts you accept and which you reject. You've placed your faith in a book that you yourself admit has errors.

You're picking your own morality ("I like the New Testament God, he's a decent guy!") but refusing to acknowledge that your choice is every bit as subjective as anyone else's, because it is admittedly based on interpretation and elision.

---

I am claiming the Old Testament is inaccurate and incomplete because I am a Christian, and Christ taught some things differently than how the OT says it. That's the simplest way I can put it for ya. I "pick" my morality in the sense that I chose to be a Christian Catholic. I believe the morality in that religion is correct. I did not make it up on my own.

I am sorry if you feel I am being vague, but I don't know how to better explain myself to you. I have tried explaining as best I can and I can't think of any instance of me being vague. Your comment though, does shows how little you understand about Catholicism. You say that I put my faith on a book when Catholicism actually *teaches* that the bible is not the end all be all of the faith. It actually *teaches* us not to rely solely on the bible or to put our faith solely on the bible.

---

---

Christianity is defined by myth.  Nothing else.

I respect your opinion.

---

What are some of the things that Jesus taught differently?  He said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel so where do Catholics come in?

[The Grand Nudger]

Supporting myth with fairy tale, and fairy tale with belief isn't going to be very helpful.  It doesn't matter to me whether or not a god has contradictory attributes or claims associated, nor do I see the things you would see as contradictions...as contradictions.   A god could be -consistent- and non-contradictory and still not get my vote. As could any given example morality.

In the given example you quoted above...I couldn't care less whether it is fact or fiction...consistent or contradictory...or even cherry picking......it is immoral regardless of any of that. A morality which contains that sort of arrangement simply isn't worth pursuing, to me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I am claiming the Old Testament is inaccurate and incomplete because I am a Christian, and Christ taught some things differently than how the OT says it. That's the simplest way I can put it for ya. I "pick" my morality in the sense that I chose to be a Christian Catholic. I believe the morality in that religion is correct. I did not make it up on my own.

You were raised with it in mind. You were raised to believe that chattel slavery was wrong. You were raised to think that killing someone for being gay is wrong. You were raised to think that offering up one's daughter for the purposes of a gang rape is despicable. That was the morality you were raised with, and that is why you choose to see those passages as allegory -- for what, though, I don't know. (What would be the real meaning of the story about Lot offering up his daughter to be gamgraped? Me, I read that as your god saying it is better for an innocent girl to be raped than for him to empower his angels to defeat the entire crowd of perverts.)

I am sorry if you feel I am being vague, but I don't know how to better explain myself to you. I have tried explaining as best I can and I can't think of any instance of me being vague. Your comment though, does shows how little you understand about Catholicism. You say that I put my faith on a book when Catholicism actually *teaches* that the bible is not the end all be all of the faith. It actually *teaches* us not to rely solely on the bible or to put our faith solely on the bible.

Um, you might want to ask around about that -- or maybe not:

The Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum), states, "Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" (11).

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...-salvation