What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

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,

...But isn't that what you are doing when you say you believe the story of Genesis is 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?

I believe ALL the Old Testament is allegorical. The nice parts, and the bad parts alike. I'm not sure why you are perturbed by this. Would you rather me believe that the bad parts about slavery and stoning being acceptable are literal? Why would you want me to believe such horrible things are true? They go against the teachings of Christ, so of course I am against them.

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.

I regard them as allegorical because I regard the entire Old Testament as allegorical. I don't believe Moses spoke to a burning bush. I don't believe Jonah was in a whale for 3 days. I don't believe Eve was tempted by an apple. Above all, and most importantly, I regard it all as allegorical because I'm Christian. And Christ *specifically* teaches that some stuff in the Old Testament is inaccurate. I am not trying to make an argument, just telling you what I believe because you seem to really want to know and understand.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then what was christ crucified for....what effect is it supposed to have had..?

[Catholic_Lady]

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?

I'm a Christian. So I follow the teachings of Christ. I have had my years of doubt, but I have used logic to determine that this is the right path. I do not believe moral is subjective. I believe morality is a truth, and I try to find and learn that truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's doubtful that you've actually used logic to determine that catholicism is the right path in any sense other than what feels right for you, and to you.  There's really no need for you to do that, of course.  You can go down a path "just because".

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

It isn't all about emotional inclinations. I use logic to get to this point. Christianity makes much more logical sense to me. Just as being an atheist makes more sense to you. Could someone else other than yourself be right? Sure, but you don't think so. Same with me.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Which is fair enough, but surely you can also see the merit to an argument which suggests there is no objective morality, and that morality, like existence, is fluid and subject to change. The parts of our morality which we deem to be unmoving (murder as an example) have just if not more underpinning through an evolutionary argument than they do a theological one. And even then it is not strictly adhered to. Contexts can make that immovable constant a lot more moveable.

The town where I live in England existed over 1500 years ago. The morality of the people there was almost certainly different to the morality which exists in the town today. How does one reconcile this with an immovable, objective moral framework?

[The Grand Nudger]

"logical sense" is non-negotiable.  If two people use logic and get contradictory results, one or both of them is wrong.  That's how logic works. I don't get it, though, you think that logic can be subjective...but not morality? You think that revelation can be subjective, but not morality? Is morality the only thing that you think can;t be subjective...or are there other things in that set, for you?

[Catholic_Lady]

---

---

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.

Yes, thank you for the reply. I understand what you are saying. You believe that, if to them, killing infidels is not immoral, then they are not definitively doing anything immoral as a reality. You do not believe that there is a moral truth. And that is where we differ.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Your god created everything. It follows that he created death. Your blithe assertion that death is the beginning of eternal life has no support whatsoever. Bring facts, not airy claims.

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

You're wrong.

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.

I suppose that all life isn't sacred, then.

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.[/wuote]

Yes, I was looking for reasonable answers. Hogwash and flimflam do not interest me. Blithe assertions unsupported by fact or reason are useless, because you can say anything you want about the nature of your god's morality -- even to the point of ignoring the holy book that your own church, through St Augustine himself, says is inerrant! -- and not have to support it even in the face of contrary opinion from your own saints.

Sorry, your ability to make sense of your own position is clearly nonexistent. Appealing to religious claims as a substitute is unconvincing.

You're a nice enough person, and I appreciate that you carry yourself with much more grace than the average Christian who comes strolling through here, but at the end of it all, your points are just as vapid, and just as bereft of support.

[quote='Catholic_Lady' pid='965920' dateline='1434440730']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.

Which is another way of saying, "Because that's what I prefer to believe."

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.

So close, and yet so far away ...

[The Grand Nudger]

You keep insisting that you're somehow different...guess what nubbins..you've been lied to....you're going to be hard pressed to find a single person here that wouldn't call what ISIS does immoral...regardless of whether or not there is an objective moral standard. The one simply isn't required for the other.