What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Mister Agenda]

Don't take my word for it, do a quick google search!

I learned about it on the animal channel. I was pretty traumatized by the sight of lions killing baby lion cubs.

Interestingly, they don't do it to their own kids, do they?
Do you remember what the hosts of that show on animal channel said?

Sorry, I was attempting sarcasm.

[Catholic_Lady]

It means that it IS immoral regardless of what some people believe. So, going around butchring infidel men, women, and children for the sole reason that they are not radical Islamists, is immoral, period.

-agreed.

 This is a moral truth. 

To you and I, sure....lol, why not..but obviously, they disagree.  Subjective morality, yet again.

They disagree, yes. But they are wrong. It IS immoral. Even if they don't think it is.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then why do you balk at the death of the firstborn?  God decreed this, and god defines the good.

I agree, btw, they are being immoral regardless of what they believe......but this is, again, my subjective morality, and in this conversation -our- subjective morality. You and I are perfectly capable of reaching the same conclusion. Now, if I asked you -why- it was wrong, would you tell me that it is because god has defined it as such? Don't you think there might be a more persuasive, and entirely less fanciful answer to that question? Would you approach ISIS with the killer "god defines it" argument of moral superiority?

-because I wouldn't. I find this no more persuasive than -you- do when ISIS says that god has defined the good, and that -their- actions are the divinely just ones.

[robvalue]

So... you don't believe in evolution? Or you think God put some magic into evolution or something?

Because we already have great explanations that don't require such massive assumptions.

[abaris]

I learned about it on the animal channel. I was pretty traumatized by the sight of lions killing baby lion cubs.

Yeah, male lions killing off strange offspring to take over the harem. Never their own. Which by the way happened frequently in human history too. But cats aren't the most social species either.

[Catholic_Lady]

The question is *who or what* has established this moral law?

Would you believe me if I said, most likely, society did it?

Well, I believe God has. I believe God created human life as a sacred thing, and so to destroy or mistreat or hurt something sacred is always going to be objectively immoral. I do not believe this is subjective. I believe it is a moral truth.

One must first accept that there is a god, before one can delve into the possibility that such a moral system was provided by said god, don't you think?
Atheists, *sort of* don't accept the existence of a god as a given in a discussion... sure, we may, once in a while, use the hypothetical existence just to show that some tale spun around it ends up making little sense...

I believe that that is what you believe.
But society can think some horrific things are moral. Slavery, segregation, etc have all been big things in the past in this very country. But it was still wrong. Look at isis, they think what they are doing is good. They are wrong.

------

Yes, I do think so. That is why I started this thread. To know what you guys thought about morality, since you don't think it comes from God. I have talked about my opinions because I have been asked about them.

---

At the end of the day it may be that -none- of us are right.  Your confidence that one of the answers available is the right answer might be misplaced.

Yes, that is a possibility as well.

 That's not the thrust of the thread though, eh, and picking up where we left off last night....so what if the catholics story were accurarate, does that make the catholic story morally right?  I don't think that it does.  I, like you, am at least capable of assessing the morality expressed in the narrative (as you've done with the OT) and I can reach a similar conclusion about the NT as you have the regarding the prequel.   I can do this, I'm doing it now for your benefit just to show you that no objective standard is required to make announcements of ones own moral truths.  So, the answer to the OP question would seem to be

"any number of ways"

eh?  Hell, could be that the toaster tells me whats right and wrong, subjectively, even -absurdly- and I agree with the toaster.  We tend to keep those folks under lock and key but they exist, and they have a way of determining right from wrong that differs from -both- of our ways.  It's a wide field.

What "catholic's story" are you referring to?

[downbeatplumb]

Thank Kitan.

But don't you believe there are some things that ARE immoral regardless of how someone might "feel?"

For example, a jealous husband can feel that murdering his cheating wife is not immoral. But he is wrong. It IS immoral regardless of how he feels or what he thinks. The question is, where does the universal truth "murder is wrong" come from?

Well the bible has gods advice on what to do in precisely this situation.

You kill the cheating wife and its all good.

http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm

Other people may have covered this but this thread grew faaassst.

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently, the stories are legion..since they can (according to you) interpret them interchangeably as literal and allegorical. But, specifically to me?

-That a god came to earth, gave us some rules and clarification, and then was sacrificed as payment for our own misdeeds in order to avert a hellish fate.

If all of that were true, how would that make any of it morally -right-?

[robvalue]

My problem is this:

Say you're right and god did do that, he made us moral. I assume all this took literally no effort on his part, being a god and all.

Isn't one thank you enough? Why do you feel the need to thank him over and over every day and make it such a big part of your life? It's an honest question. Are you scared he will take it away from you if you don't? Or do you think he really deserves such relentless praise? Why would he even care, being a god?

I'm interested

[Catholic_Lady]

I guess my reply was buried under dozens of others, but I'd like to ask Lady, how can you view Jesus as a moral person-let alone a moral TEACHER-with the context of thought crime and eternal torment in mind?

Can you rephrase the question? I don't quite follow what you mean...