What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

It is part of the Christian belief to believe that God is goodness and love. So, I'd have to explain why I am Christian in the first place.

This is just my theory, but I think we all have it inside of us to instinctively know that things like love, generosity, honesty, chastity, temperance, etc... are objectively good things, and the acts that represent those things, are good acts. It doesn't mean we hold all the answers to morality, nor does it mean we can't be brainwashed into thinking killing infidels (for example) is good, but I do believe we do have a little piece of "God" inside us to help guide, as part of a human instinct.

So are you saying that humans can make moral choices without god?

You mean without believing in God? Yes. :-)

I have said this all along.

[rexbeccarox]

(bold mine)

That's called serotonin.

I don't doubt that there is chemistry/biology behind it. But I still think it was planned that way by God, so that we would have some notion of objective morality.

... but what of those of us who don't have a notion of objective morality?  Did God just skip us?

ETA: also, I still don't understand why a list of objective morals is impossible.

[Brakeman]

There is no greater love than to die for somebody.

Absolutely wrong!!!
It takes nothing more than a moment's quick decision to sacrifice your life for some cause.

The greatest sacrifice is to labor daily for the betterment of the undeserving.
This is something jesus did NOT do.

Jesus could have sacrificed his demands that we slavishly obey and adore him and accept any and all into his heaven while healing and feeding everyone for all eternity. He could have sacrificed his need to have vengeance on those that don't worship him and his need to continue to punish mankind with pain and mortality because of what Adam and apple girl did some 6000 years ago.

A truly just god would give us a loving judgment, he would understand all mitigating factors of our human frailty, yet as written in the bible, God is harsh and demanding, I would far rather my children be judged by a loving mother, such as yourself. Why would a perfect loving being be a harsher judge to his own creation than you would be to your children?

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't doubt that there is chemistry/biology behind it. But I still think it was planned that way by God, so that we would have some notion of objective morality.

... but what of those of us who don't have a notion of objective morality?  Did God just skip us?

ETA:  also, I still don't understand why a list of objective morals is impossible.

Would you say have something inside of you that tells you that love, kindness, honesty, generosity... are all good things?

[Metis]

So are you saying that humans can make moral choices without god?

You mean without believing in God? Yes. :-)

I have said this all along.

Indeed, but this is misleading again.

You admit that people can make moral choices without the Catholic Church, but a core reaching of the Catholic Church is that it is impossible to be moral as a characteristic without being a Catholic.

Odd example to post Randy, considering Wilberforce was an Anglican and was slagged off by the Catholic Church.

The trajectory that made this possible was moving away from Catholicism. Still Christian, but certainly not Catholic.

Why not?  It is all dishonest anyway.  One must reject what the Bible and Jesus say in order to get to the idea that slavery is bad.  It is only through the erosion of religious beliefs that a Christian can be an abolitionist.

Of course, it is a good thing that people are and have been getting away from the morality of the Bible.  But it is completely dishonest to say that the Bible is the source of such improvements.  But you are not arguing with someone who has any regard for the truth, so you ought not expect to hear such things from him.

Ah...Funnily enough I do have to disagree here (wow, this is bittersweet). I think it is impossible to believe the Roman Pontiff is infallible and to disagree with slavery but I don't actually think that actually extends to Protestantism (Orthodoxy suffers the same trap as Catholicism, but to a much lesser extent as their claims to infallibility are far less grandoise).

We know there was a serious reshuffle in what was good/bad between the OT and NT and several commands contained in the NT like "there is neither gentile or jew" can very easily be extended or reinterpreted to be against slavery. I don't have a problem with Protestants claiming that slavery is immoral, many of them freely admit they can read the verse incorrectly but I do find it curious that the infallible mouthpiece of God can change his mind on the matter.

[rexbeccarox]

... but what of those of us who don't have a notion of objective morality?  Did God just skip us?

ETA:  also, I still don't understand why a list of objective morals is impossible.

Would you say have something inside of you that tells you that love, kindness, honesty, generosity... are all good things?

Yes; it's called serotonin.

[abaris]

Yep. Makes sense. Would you agree, however, that there are SOME broad agreements even among atheists?

But these SOME don't go much beyond disbelief. Atheists are quite a broad group of people. Ayn Rand was an atheist, just to give one example. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire, if you get my drift.

There are atheists I don't want to be associated with and there others I happen to agree with. I'm not defining myself over my atheism, but over my values. And these have next to nothing to do with my absence of belief. I can appreciate the pope's stance on wealth distribution and climate change, since he's got some clout when it comes to influencing the members of his church and I happen to agree with what he's saying on these matters.

My point is, I don't buy the whole package. If I agree with the pope on a matter, I'm still not agreeing with anything else he stands for. But I'm not waving it away either because of some stupid principle.

[Nope]

This is a cop-out, the writers of the new testament were also men why should we trust anything they wrote about jesus.

They had a huge advantage. They had Jesus to go off of, who is God and made Himself man, and spoke to us directly. The OT folks did not have that.

Jesus and god are the same being so they did have Jesus.

[Catholic_Lady]

There is no greater love than to die for somebody.

Absolutely wrong!!!

I respect your opinion, but still believe I am right on this.

---

You mean without believing in God? Yes. :-)

I have said this all along.

Indeed, but this is misleading again.

You admit that people can make moral choices without the Catholic Church, but a core reaching of the Catholic Church is that it is impossible to be moral as a characteristic without being a Catholic.

I don't mean to be misleading. It's just a tricky question for me to answer, and I think if you put yourself in my shoes you'll be able to see why.

I believe that God created morality and goodness. So I do not think it would exist without Him. (and of course, I don't think anything would exist without him). So the short answer is, yes, you do not need to believe in God to make moral choices.

But without God, there would be no such thing as moral choices.

Does that make more sense?

---

Would you say have something inside of you that tells you that love, kindness, honesty, generosity... are all good things?

Yes; it's called serotonin.

Right, so you do have a notion of it?

---

They had a huge advantage. They had Jesus to go off of, who is God and made Himself man, and spoke to us directly. The OT folks did not have that.

Jesus and god are the same being so they did have Jesus.

I think you know what I mean.

God had not made Himself man and come down to talk directly to us for 33 years. The best understanding we have of God is when He came and spoke directly to us as one of us.

[Pyrrho]

...

Why not?  It is all dishonest anyway.  One must reject what the Bible and Jesus say in order to get to the idea that slavery is bad.  It is only through the erosion of religious beliefs that a Christian can be an abolitionist.

Of course, it is a good thing that people are and have been getting away from the morality of the Bible.  But it is completely dishonest to say that the Bible is the source of such improvements.  But you are not arguing with someone who has any regard for the truth, so you ought not expect to hear such things from him.

Ah...Funnily enough I do have to disagree here (wow, this is bittersweet). I think it is impossible to believe the Roman Pontiff is infallible and to disagree with slavery but I don't actually think that actually extends to Protestantism (Orthodoxy suffers the same trap as Catholicism, but to a much lesser extent as their claims to infallibility are far less grandoise).

We know there was a serious reshuffle in what was good/bad between the OT and NT and several commands contained in the NT like "there is neither gentile or jew" can very easily be extended or reinterpreted to be against slavery. I don't have a problem with Protestants claiming that slavery is immoral, many of them freely admit they can read the verse incorrectly but I do find it curious that the infallible mouthpiece of God can change his mind on the matter.

Two things.  First, the serious reshuffle is bogus.  It is just Christian bullshit propaganda.  The words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Of course, Christians typically pretend that Jesus didn't really mean what he said.  But we have there Jesus endorsing all of the laws, which includes the laws pertaining to slavery.

I may also add that the idea that God got it wrong and had to correct things with Jesus is theologically problematic.  If there had been a drastic change, that would mean that God was drastically wrong in the first place.  Even a little change means that God was a little wrong.


Second, the New Testament tells us that slaves are supposed to obey their masters (I'll save myself some typing by just quoting someone):

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
 
    Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
 
    Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.  If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful.  You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.  Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.  (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
 
    In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
 
    The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.  "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.  Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."  (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

So, the message about slavery is, slaves should obey their masters.  That is the "good news" of the New Testament.  It is only in rejecting such evil drivel that one can be an abolitionist.  The Bible is simply proslavery, regardless of whether we confine ourselves to just the New Testament or not.

So I stand by my original comments.  It is only in rejecting parts of the Bible, AND parts of what Jesus said (as reported in the Bible), that one can be an abolitionist.  That applies whether one is protestant or catholic or anything else.