What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was. I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I remember the pope of the time being very much against it. So chances are I probably would too if I knew.

(edited. sorry, i'm watching a movie)

You have previously claimed that killing in a just war is not immoral. Now you want to have your cake and eat it too?

I don't see how what I said above negates my earlier statement about just war.

[Ravenshire]

You have previously claimed that killing in a just war is not immoral. Now you want to have your cake and eat it too?

I don't see how what I said above negates my earlier statement about just war.

You really believe Bush invading Iraq for revenge is a just war?!?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What I said was the murder is inherently immoral. Murder is already defined as a wrongful killing.

My apologies. Over a thread this long, the memory of an aging man slips.

So what you're saying is that sometimes killing a human being is not wrong?

I believe killing is only moral in self defense. I'm sorry if you find this sad.

Yet, you've defined "self-defense" as defending a third party, even a third party unknown to the defending killer, meaning that your definition of moral killing, as opposed to murder, is rather elastic. Were the German soldiers defending Berlin in 1945 behaving morally? They knew the war was lost, they knew that Jews had been gassed by the millions, and they fought because they were afraid of what the Russians might do to their wives and daughters. Yet their fighting prolonged the war, prolonged Hitler's life, and killed men themselves.

Were those killings moral?

So the answer to your question depends on the circumstances.

And that, my dear, is the essence of moral relativity.

[Ravenshire]

Over the past week or so, I have realized that there are some folks in this forum who are not interested in real discussion or will not conduct themselves in a mature manner. Consequently, I have added them to my ignore list.

I didn't come to this decision quickly or easily. I have never ignored anyone before in the decade that I have been engaged in online apologetics, but there are simply too many trolls here for me to worry about. Conversely, there are others who are both interesting to talk to and interested in what I have to say. They deserve my attention, and they will get it.

If I'm not responding to you, now you know why. [Image: wave.gif]

What a chicken shit!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Over the past week or so, I have realized that there are some folks in this forum who are not interested in real discussion or will not conduct themselves in a mature manner. Consequently, I have added them to my ignore list.

I didn't come to this decision quickly or easily. I have never ignored anyone before in the decade that I have been engaged in online apologetics, but there are simply too many trolls here for me to worry about. Conversely, there are others who are both interesting to talk to and interested in what I have to say. They deserve my attention, and they will get it.

If I'm not responding to you, now you know why. [Image: wave.gif]

What a chicken shit!

I have signatures turned off, so I missed this little bit.

I don't doubt that Randy has added me to his ignore list.  But I hope someone will quote this post so that he can read this: Randy, I haven't added you to my ignore list. I will keep replying to your posts as if you are reading, because my purpose is not to change your mind -- I know that cannot happen, you are wedded to your faith -- but I will reply for the sake of other readers.

And because you have me on ignore, you will not know what I'm saying unless they quote me in reply (and they aren't themselves blocked).

Truly written, by Frank Herbert, the author of Dune: "Those who see only what they wish to see are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions."

I'm looking at you, Randy.

[rexbeccarox]

What a chicken shit!

I have signatures turned off, so I missed this little bit.

I don't doubt that Randy has added me to his ignore list.  But I hope someone will quote this post so that he can read this: Randy, I haven't added you to my ignore list. I will keep replying to your posts as if you are reading, because my purpose is not to change your mind -- I know that cannot happen, you are wedded to your faith -- but I will reply for the sake of other readers.

And because you have me on ignore, you will not know what I'm saying unless they quote me in reply (and they aren't themselves blocked).

Truly written, by Frank Herbert, the author of Dune: "Those who see only what they wish to see are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions."

I'm looking at you, Randy.

I'll quote you because even if he tried to put me on ignore, it wouldn't work.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see how what I said above negates my earlier statement about just war.

You really believe Bush invading Iraq for revenge is a just war?!?

No, I said it wasn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and when the pope is for a war...or directly calls for it himself?

A pope's opinion on a particular war, or his decision to start a war, is not infallible. So a Catholic is free to disagree with it so long as they are adhering to Church teaching about it to the best of their abilities.

So, the pope being for or against something...not -actually- an indicator of whether you're for or against something..as you implied in the response directly prior to my question.  Right? LOL, to the best of their abilities.., now following doctrine is subjective as well? "Well gee, you know, the pope said I had to wait to marry..but I just fucking -can't-". Soon your very belief in -christ- will be relative, subjective, and depending upon circumstance.

I'll be there to applaud you.

[rexbeccarox]

A pope's opinion on a particular war, or his decision to start a war, is not infallible. So a Catholic is free to disagree with it so long as they are adhering to Church teaching about it to the best of their abilities.

So, the pope being for or against something...not -actually- an indicator of whether you're for or against something..as you implied in the response directly prior to my question.  Right?  LOL, to the best of their abilities.., now following doctrine is subjective as well.  "Well gee, you know, the pope said I had to wait to marry..but I just fucking -can't-".  Soon your very belief in christ will be relative, subjective, and depending upon circumstance.

I'll be there to applaud you.

It begs the question, too: what's the point of the pope?

[The Grand Nudger]

He's the one remaining person god speaks to(and the one remaining person willing to speak to god) apparently. That's what happens when you dick with people for centuries, no friends.