What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I must admit, I have not opened reading material and I apologize.  I have been very overwhelmed trying to answer all of you and have not had the time. If you want to tell me something, it is better if you cut and paste or if you put in your own words. If you post a link I probably won't get to it.

Well, I had thought you were interested. Forgive my misapprehension.

No need to apologize. Apart from being overwhelmed with trying to address everyone, it's also some laziness on my part, and I'll admit that. I'd much rather have discussions rather than be given reading material. I appreciate you taking the time though.

---

I'm not sure how it still counts as cherry picking when I say I feel the *whole* Old Testament is written in allegorical form, rather than just the bad stuff....

But if that is how you feel then I can respect your opinion and move on.

It isn't my "opinion" -- it is a fact that you are selecting one part of the Bible to read literally, and selecting another to read figuratively, and that is cherry-picking. You like the NT because it comports to the morality that you're already bringing to the table.

As for moving on, I don't see any great interest in discussing with yet another believer why their particular view is correct, given the fact that you're not bringing anything to the table except "these are my beliefs". I don't see why your moral sensibility has any privilege or gravitas, and it's clearly just as relative as mine.  The difference between you and I is that I'm responsible enough to own my own moral sensibilities, and adapt them to what I consider good, whereas you adopt the one that seems closest to your views, and try to ignore the parts which cause you mental dissonance.

I think your approach to morality is shallow, and I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.

That's fine. I can respect that.

---

Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Well, the difference between priests and the rest is that the rest don't claim to be Men of God.  Why does this have to be explained to you?

With moral authority comes moral responsibility.  Arguing that "others do it too!" is no excuse for men who claim to have Christian morality as part of their job description. Sickening, just sickening, the way Catholics fall over themselves to avoid the obvious issues of moral responsibility.

Tell us again how your god is the fount of morality.  What a shame that this majestic god of yours cannot inspire even his own holy men to behave in a morally upright manner.

I agree completely. Priests are to be held to higher standards and it's even worse when something like this is done by a person who claims to be a man of God. I was only saying that we shouldn't steroetype priests as molesters when so few of them do it, especially compared to other men. That's all I was saying.

---

I did not "examine" them, but from what I knew about them, I knew they were not quite right.

So you didn't study them, but are still comfortable with your uninformed decision.  Got it.

Correct. I did not "study" other religions out there. Just used my judgement based on what I knew about them, and I felt confident enough in my examination of Catholicism to decide I believed in it.

---

Like I said, unless we were brainwashed or have a mental disorder, I think we all instinctively know what is moral and what is immoral. We all know why it is immoral to hurt other people. Christianity reafirms that this is immoral, and helps me understand *why* it is. If Christianity taught that torturing children is good, for example, it would completely go against my gut instinct and I would never give it a second thought..

Two thoughts: For one, you've now reduced morality to what you feel in your gut. Christianity- or at least the version of it you accept- aligns with what you instinctively feel to be moral, and therefore you accept it. Do you think there's anything substantive behind your instincts in this regard, like actual reasons to support those instincts? For example, do you think murder is immoral because of the aversion you have to it, or can you supply pragmatic reasons for why that aversion might exist in the first place?

Secondly, you've said twice now that your religion helps you to understand why certain things are moral and immoral: care to share that why with the class?

Whoops, looks like I had a typo on that comment. I'm sorry it's confusing. I explained it more thoroughly on a comment I made prior to this one, where I say that for the basic stuff, we instinctively know right/wrong. Like hurting others. Though I do believe there are some finer points we may need help with.

Christianity has helped me understand the *why* behind certain things being immoral. I have also explained this a few times but it must have gotten lost  in everything else.

Basically, I believe human life is sacred because God created it that way. And so to destroy or hurt or disregard something sacred is wrong. If I believed we were nothing but material made from star dust, I would still believe hurting others is wrong, but I wouldn't quite understand why.