What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Silver]

Not always.

Others have complained.

The problem lies in the system of the new forum.

I like to edit quotes, not the entirety of what someone is stating, but I edit when these idiots allow the quotes to stack.

I try to remove the stacks, and when I do the quotes disappear completely upon posting.

[Huggy Bear]

I posted correctly.  

It is not my fault this new system makes it impossible to quote properly with the box you are so expecting to surround your quote and mine separately.

The last button on the tool bar (document icon) will temporaily revert back to the old system.

The full context of the sentance was: "Atheists on this forum constantly bring up the criminal behavior of Catholic priests, fine, but where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation?"

A perfectly legitimate question.

[Nope]

[

Atheists on this forum constantly bring up the criminal behavior of Catholic priests, fine, but where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation? Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

Did we have a thread on Harvey Milk?

[Catholic_Lady]

Sexual thoughts are not in and of themselves immoral.

Jesus disagrees:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a]

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Or has that been changed as well?

I have already addressed this in full several pages back. I also briefly addressed this on the sentence that came right after the one you quoted. :-)

[paulpablo]

Then do not quote my post when remonstrating them, Dipshit. Make your case using the words of the person you think is the hypocrite.

I think I'll start answering your posts by quoting Westboro Baptist Church arguments.  Idiot.

The purpose of quoting you was to add context to my post which was 3 pages later. I'm accused of derailing threads enough as it is....

I think he is trying to tell you that he lumps us all together without careful reading or reflection.  When you have the word of god who needs our words?

I lumped you all together because you all tend to agree together.

Atheists on this forum constantly bring up the criminal behavior of Catholic priests, fine, but where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation? Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

I don't know who Harvey Milk is, after researching him I still don't see what he did wrong.

[Huggy Bear]

[

Atheists on this forum constantly bring up the criminal behavior of Catholic priests, fine, but where is the equal disgust in the Harvey Milk situation? Not one atheist was willing to denounce Milks actions, which is why I'm comfortable generalizing in this instance.

Did we have a thread on Harvey Milk?

Yes.
There was a thread attempting to make fun of a religious group for opposing Harvey Milk's image (who was gay) being put on a stamp, come to find out, he was having sex with an underage boy.... Whoops! When this was pointed out, quite a few atheists began making excuses for the behavior, none would admit what he did was wrong.

Yet they all jump on the bandwagon when it come to criticizing Catholic priests.

I'm not Catholic ( I don't belong to any organization) nor do I agree with Catholic doctrine, I just point out hypocrisy when I see it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Here is the Catechism's reasons of why contraception is immoral: (note, it does not simply say "because Onan got killed for it")

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 

Bolding is mine...what do you think they're talking about here...when they state that the magisterium has expounded upon this doctrine on numerous occasions?  What is it that they were expounding -over-?  I'll give you three guesses and two mulligans.

A "doctrine" is a belief. The doctrine they are referring to is that contraception is immoral.

At this point I have to ask, how -involved- have you been, throughout your life, in the church?  Is it just someplace you went to on sundays?  You seem to be unaware of the doctrine...even when you read over it and quote it in response....it just escapes you that I am talking about the same thing the catechism is talking about........and I'll let you in on something...I'm talking about it that way because that's the way I was -taught- to discuss the issue.....by the church.

I was born in Brazil, where over half the population is Catholic. My entire family is Catholic, most of them devout and practicing, including my parents and siblings. I went to a Catholic school from kindergarten to 8th grade. During high school I volunteered at Church and was part of the Church Youth group which met once a week to socialize and discuss the faith. We went to Church every sunday. During college I met my husband and we were both in our university's Catholic Student Association. My husband and his family are also devout Catholics. We went on several Catholic retreats in the past 10 years, and I was very active on a Catholic forum for a few years. That's what I mean when I say I grew up in the Church.

It all begins with the assertion that god has proscribed a certain purpose to "the marriage act"...that purpose is explained and elaborated upon in scripture, gods position on the purpose and those who defy that purpose are -elucidated- by stories such as that of Onan.  -That- is what the magisterium was expounding upon.  It all starts with what god desires for this, and you wouldn't know what god desired (and what he didn't) where it not for the story of Onan, and the interpretation that catholics have assigned official status to.

I know it's about what God desires. My assertion was that the story of Onan was not *the* reason for the Church's views on this. If the story of Onan had never happened, the Church would still have come to this conclusion about contraception based on everything else the Catechism talked about. The Church doesn't think about these things as simplistically as you seem to believe. There is a lot of theology and philosophy behind it. The OT also says it is wrong to eat pork. Yet the Church does not teach it is wrong to eat pork because the Church has not found theological or philosophical reasons why eating pork should be immoral.

Of course they don't say "because god killed Onan for it" because that sounds horrible (and they're not in the business of driving customers away..not that they haven;t said it, and been comfortable saying it, to audiences both past and present)......I say it, because I have no qualms about cutting through the obfuscatory bullshit they have -clothed- that statement in.

I don't think the Church is concerned with driving "customers" away. ;-)

I'm sure there are several reasons why the Catechism didn't say "because God killed Onan" in its explanation of the contraception law. Concern for saying something unpopular is not one of them. I can tell you are a very intelligent guy, but I think between the 2 of us, I have a better understanding of Catholicism. And I say that in all politeness and respect.

---

Trust me, there are plenty of Catholics who do not follow some very fundamental Catholic laws about sexuality. The vast majority don't. I think if the Church was orchastrating massive brainwashing, more Catholics would follow their own laws. ;-)

Doesn't matter. They're told to.

It does matter. You are throwing an unwarranted accusation at a whole group of people. My people. Telling someone something is not the same as brainwashing. I know you don't mean any harm, but I do feel like I need to stand up a little bit here with this comment.

I cannot relate to the things you describe above. I have not had those experiences at all in my whole life of being a devout Catholic and growing up in the Church. The way I was taught about sexual morality was far from "don't do it or you're going to hell." I am sorry if your experiences have been different, and as a member of the Church I take responsibility on our behalf for the poor way in which we approached the subject.

No, you fucking aren't sorry. You think it's best for me.

You can't 'take responsibility'. Vicarious redemption, really? Don't try to take away from what someone did. You don't even know what you want to 'take responsibility for'.

Yes, it is.

Wow. Just.....wow. you got me fucking baffled.

I understand why you are. Lol, I went back and looked at what I was responding to and realized I totally misread what you wrote. I thought you said "immoral" instead of "moral." The answer is no. Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.

---

Did she just say threatening with torture is moral???

I misread what he wrote. I thought he said "immoral" instead of "moral."

So I responded with "yes it is."

The answer should have been "no it is not."

---

-and alllllllll of this shit, in service of asking us "what -is- good, and how do we determine it".  Seems to me that this is the sort of question our catholic friend should be grappling with, as it's not providing any particular difficulty, relative to the torturous process we see unfolding here before us in the case of a catholic morality.

Are you here to make off with our justifications....like your church did so many years ago to those poor pagan fuckers? 

I misread the question. I meant to say it is not moral.

---

The idea that it's never okay to punish someone with death is in vehement disagreement with a lot of the book you hold so dear. And it flies in the face of the idea that morality doesn't shift.

It flies in the face of Hebrew Law, yes. But it does not fly in the face of the bible in its entirety. Here is what Jesus said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The past several popes have been vehemently against the death penalty.

This is what the USCCB has said about the Death Penalty:

 http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/h...shment.cfm

---

Did she just say threatening with torture is moral???

Yep. She did. The other half of my respect for her is down the toilet.

Sometimes people seem so nice.

As I have stated, I misread the question to say "immoral" instead of "moral", and provided you with the opposite of what I intended. My apologies.

Sorry if I did not get to all your questions. As you can imagine, I have a lot of questions to answer, and I am a slow typer.

---

Trust me, there are plenty of Catholics who do not follow some very fundamental Catholic laws about sexuality. The vast majority don't. I think if the Church was orchastrating massive brainwashing, more Catholics would follow their own laws. ;-)

That doesn't follow. You're essentially saying that if the catholic church was attempting to brainwash scores of people, then it would be good at it. Well, that's not automatically true, and in fact the failures of organized religion to live up to its own preachings are well recognized here on this board.

Ok, that's fair enough. I can assure you though, as a Catholic myself, we are not trying to brainwash anyone.

---

- I'd say contraception is immoral because I believe it changes sex to purposely render it infertile, as I have explained in my previous posts.

Admittedly that only makes sense if people do not want to have a baby .. unless they also think that god expects us to enjoy sex as little as possible while always attempting to be fruitful.

Just to clarify though, the Church does advocate fertility monitoring for responsible family planning. I had a fertility monitoring machine and used it for the first 4 months of marriage when I was trying to avoid.

Listen, I understand this makes very little sense to you all and doesn't hold much water at all unless you believe in God and believe that He had a special purpose for creating sex. I can't take God out of the picture here. I respect and understand you all's disagreement on this and would never judge anyone who felt differently.

Yep,  At this point we just have to agree to disagree.  I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on sex, though l do see the appeal of holding back until being overwhelmed by pleasure.  It has taken a while for me to get over the loss of sex being something naughty.  Naughty sex was really, really good.  But fortunately, in fantasy, I can still imagine myself succumbing to one or another taboo.  Keeps it interesting.

In all seriousness, I have no problem with accepting this difference.  You have a way of life that satisfies and makes sense to you.  To each his own.

I agree, thank you!

---

You have to put yourself back in their time to understand why they wrote things the way they did, and that's what I was telling Rhythm.  

That's understood. The book is nothing but a mirror of their society. But it goes to show that morals do change based on the society and the time in question. In our vast majority we don't take bronze age tribal standards as morals anymore. Some do, they're called literalists. But the same is true for the NT. If we would live by their standards, we would have a very different society and certainly not a better one.

I'm glad you understand!

I'd say morality doesn't change and just because they thought it was moral, doesn't mean it actually was.

Jesus addressed this when he claimed it immoral to throw stones at the adulteress, even though that society thought it was moral and normal.

---

Yep. She did. The other half of my respect for her is down the toilet.

Sometimes people seem so nice.

There is no reason to be surprised.  She did tell everyone she is a Catholic, and even has it in her username to make it very hard to miss.  Hell is a part of Catholic doctrine.

I am disappointed to know you were not surprised by this. Not in you, but in myself for not being a better example.

As I said, I misread his question and answered in the opposite way I wanted to.

---

I've never gotten an honest answer so far and I've asked almost all theists

CL, how does anyone know anything about god?

I know you directed this to CL, but I would like to answer, also.

Several ways:

1. The material world around us speaks of an intelligent designer.
2. Logic and reason about how all this came into being.
3. Revelation of God making things known to us that we could not know otherwise.

I agree with this completely and could never have put it into words. Thank you Randy.

---

Through our sexuality, God allows us to participate in His creation of new life.

It may come as a surprise, but we're not the only species having sex.

While all life is sacred, human life is held at a higher level than that of animals. That is why sex for us is such a sacred thing in a way that it is not for animals.

---

He's God. We're not. Some people have a harder time with that than others.

Do you actually believe you're leaving an impression?

I mean, I could just as well say, he's Bigfoot, we're not for all the "evidence" you're presenting. You're packing bible quotes as if there was not tommorow, but as far as we are concerned, you're firing blanks.

Randy has a different understanding of the OT as myself. While I see those stories as being written allegorically, Randy believes them to be more literal. I hold the opinion that God never killed Onan for spilling his seed, or that there ever was a real man named Onan. A Catholic is free to believe either.

Here is a Catholic apologist explaining this, using the story of Jonah and the Whale as an example:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.ph...+the+whale

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] the intrinsic evil of contraception [...]

You'll need to demonstrate this before you swing it around in a conversation.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The purpose of quoting you was to add context to my post which was 3 pages later. I'm accused of derailing threads enough as it is....

Except that because I had nothing to say about that conversation regarding Milk at all (because I wasn't a regular poster here at that time), your "context" was not only artificial, but falsely constructed.

You're a dishonest little jackoff.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Jesus disagrees:


Or has that been changed as well?

I have already addressed this in full several pages back. I also briefly addressed this on the sentence that came right after the one you quoted. :-)

No, you didn't. You wrote: "They are expected and involuntary" in that sentence. That doesn't address the fact that Jesus says that in thinking about adultery with a woman, the thinker has already committed the deed. That doesn't address that at all. You only say that sexual thoughts are "expected and involuntary" -- and really, that only makes this sort of thoughtcrime worse, because you will be held to account for the sin of lustful thinking, even though you cannot help but do it, and God knows and expects that sin to occur. It's as if the State of Arizona outlawed the consumption of water.

I should think where your words and those of Jesus convey different messages, his words are regnant regarding the alleged propriety or impropriety of an act. Odd that you still have to deploy interpretation here. It's looking more and more like your conception of the Bible is that of a tract which must be read with special glasses.