Help with a Catholic

[Hurny]

Actually, if you read all the replies you received you'd have some pretty good definitions of what a person is including a biblical one directly from Genesis.

I'm starting to wonder if you are an apologist in wolf's clothing.

I'm a person who has not been particularly persuaded one way or the other, however at this point I have one theist who is giving me well formatted logical arguments with persuasive proofs while I have a lot of people here not giving me many direct answers but rather spending the whole time talking about how illogical, dogmatic, and idiotic theist's are. I wish we could just have a discussion about truth as known by reason without all the rest of the junk.

I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the help you guys have been giving me, its just that no one seems to be taking this guy too seriously and seem to sort of act as if his arguments are just nonsense automatically without really giving them a decent look.

---

Sure is it morally right to kill an innocent person. Simple answer, one that you already know...it depends. As far as absolute moral authority, your catholic buddy is the one who insists that such a thing exists. Why not ask him to show proof of that authority, rather than allowing him to set the pace of a discussion he's obviously had before.

You see I am not willing to make this admittance. I don't really see how any one can honesty say it without being severely evil. And I don't see much justification in the distinction between an innocent person and an innocent person you know, they are both equally innocent and so it is going to be ok to kill one it would be just as much ok to kill the other.

This is the evidence for the absolute moral law that he is pointing too, the fact that it appears to be objectively wrong.

That's more or less the argument. Do I believe it is absolutely and objectively morally wrong to kill and innocent person. Yes I do. But if I believe that is true it seems inescapable not to admit then that it is an objective truth. That is the point he keeps sticking me on.

Also it seems a lot easier to say 'yeah I believe its ok to kill an innocent person' then actually believing that in reality when you're standing face to face with an innocent person threatening them. Skydiving isn't all that scary while i'm in my living room but it sure is from a plane, and I think that whatever you want to call it about what it is that is in us, this conscience if you would, that seems to really make an appearance when the rubber hits the road.

---

That concept being an absolute moral authority. That's his job, not yours. What you feel about a fetus or life, or morality needs only stand up to your own opinions. That's all you need to justify. Your standards of morality are not absolute, but they are an authority....an authority as to your own opinions of morality.

I feel like I am rambling a bit on the same point but I don't think we really act as if it is an opinion. Something he said to me was that when non believers attack religions for the crimes they accuse them of they are not saying in their opinion it is wrong, they are saying such and such people are evil because of these actions. If I said 'I feel sick' there wouldn't be any reason for us to get into a heated argument and you say to me 'no you don't you feel well!' If all morality is is our own opinions I don't think we would have such arguments regarding it as if there really was a right and wrong. I think all of us would say it is objectively wrong for religious people to torture and kill non believers for not converting to their faith. we don't just say its our opinion that they shouldn't do this but if they want to well then different strokes for different fokes.

The science he brought up is irrelevant. If it were definitively shown that a fetus isn't a human life (it has been..at least here in the US), that wouldn't bother him in the least.

can you give me some kind of reference to find this science, it would be pretty helpful.