What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[IATIA]

I give you 2 examples of acts that I believe are objectively immoral, but that some societies (past and present) consider to be moral.
These acts are enslaving humans and burning rape victims.

That among other 'immoral' acts were OK in the OT (the bible god said so and in fact encouraged such acts as dashing babies heads against rocks).

And you have been quite busy I see and I got lost in the shuffle, but  I would still like an answer to my response here.

[Catholic_Lady]

Catholic Lady, you need to look up moral relativity before we can go any further. You clearly don't understand what it is, as shown by deploying semantics in defense of your conception of objective morality.

Fair enough. I looked it up. This is what I found:

"Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."


None of this is in line with my Catholic views.

---

So you think an animal who kills her babies should spend time in prison in the same way that a human who killed her own babies should? (assuming she was not insane)

According to the Bible it's not wrong for parents to kill their children.  As a matter of fact it's demanded that they kill their children in certain situations.  And when all else failed they could simply claim that the kid was a witch.  So it's all good.

According to some isolated phrases in the OT.

If you look at the entirety of the bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, you will see that absolutely, killing children is wrong.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your catholic views probably could use a bit of that tolerance, though, eh? Both in the giving and the getting......isn't it wonderful that some -do- tolerate your behavior even when we disagree? Aren't you in some other thread arguing that since neither of us can demonstrate that we are right about something...that they ought to be placed on equal footing?

[Catholic_Lady]

I give you 2 examples of acts that I believe are objectively immoral, but that some societies (past and present) consider to be moral.
These acts are enslaving humans and burning rape victims.

That among other 'immoral' acts were OK in the OT (the bible god said so and in fact encouraged such acts as dashing babies heads against rocks).

And you have been quite busy I see and I got lost in the shuffle, but  I would still like an answer to my response here.

They were perceived as ok by some of the peole of the time and some of the people who wrote the OT. But those people were wrong. Those acts are not moral and they never were.

I apologize. I will take a look.

---

More self aware? Yes.

How do you know this? Opinion or fact.

I am sorry I did not get to this earlier. I am not allowed to post links, so here is the copied and pasted from {snip}:

{snip}

moderator notice: removed copypasta

[rexbeccarox]

That among other 'immoral' acts were OK in the OT (the bible god said so and in fact encouraged such acts as dashing babies heads against rocks).

And you have been quite busy I see and I got lost in the shuffle, but  I would still like an answer to my response here.

They were perceived as ok by some of the peole of the time and some of the people who wrote the OT. But those people were wrong. Those acts are not moral and they never were.

I apologize. I will take a look.

---

How do you know this? Opinion or fact.

I am sorry I did not get to this earlier. I am not allowed to post links, so here is the copied and pasted from {snip}:

{snip}

Copypasta is just as bad as links. Please discuss using your own words.

[Catholic_Lady]

They were perceived as ok by some of the peole of the time and some of the people who wrote the OT. But those people were wrong. Those acts are not moral and they never were.

I apologize. I will take a look.

---

I am sorry I did not get to this earlier. I am not allowed to post links, so here is the copied and pasted from {snip}:

{snip}

Copypasta is just as bad as links. Please discuss using your own words.

  shoot, im sorry....

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Catholic Lady, you need to look up moral relativity before we can go any further. You clearly don't understand what it is, as shown by deploying semantics in defense of your conception of objective morality.

Fair enough. I looked it up. This is what I found:

"Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."


None of this is in  line with my Catholic views.

---

According to the Bible it's not wrong for parents to kill their children.  As a matter of fact it's demanded that they kill their children in certain situations.  And when all else failed they could simply claim that the kid was a witch.  So it's all good.

According to some isolated phrases in the OT.

If you look at the entirety of the bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, you will see that absolutely, killing children is wrong.

So God was wrong for killing his son to save you from your sins?

[Catholic_Lady]

They were perceived as ok by some of the peole of the time and some of the people who wrote the OT. But those people were wrong. Those acts are not moral and they never were.

I apologize. I will take a look.

---

I am sorry I did not get to this earlier. I am not allowed to post links, so here is the copied and pasted from {snip}:

{snip}

Copypasta is just as bad as links. Please discuss using your own words.

Becca, I don't understand. What about this?

• 30/30 Exception
  One very important exception to the the 30/30 requirement is when external links/videos/images are used within discussion or with the intention of discussion. While we would generally advise new members who haven't met the 30/30 stipulations against posting threads with the sole intention of linking to an external site (whether advertising or not) or starting your own discussions based on external content, we do of course allow you to link to external sources when it is warranted. For instance you can post external content if using it as evidence in a discussion or you can post a YouTube video if it is relevant to an ongoing discussion.
  

---

Fair enough. I looked it up. This is what I found:

"Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it."


None of this is in  line with my Catholic views.

---

According to some isolated phrases in the OT.

If you look at the entirety of the bible, particularly the teachings of Jesus, you will see that absolutely, killing children is wrong.

So God was wrong for killing his son to save you from your sins?

God didn't kill Jesus. Other people did.

[rexbeccarox]

Copypasta is just as bad as links. Please discuss using your own words.

Becca, I don't understand. What about this?

• 30/30 Exception
  One very important exception to the the 30/30 requirement is when external links/videos/images are used within discussion or with the intention of discussion. While we would generally advise new members who haven't met the 30/30 stipulations against posting threads with the sole intention of linking to an external site (whether advertising or not) or starting your own discussions based on external content, we do of course allow you to link to external sources when it is warranted. For instance you can post external content if using it as evidence in a discussion or you can post a YouTube video if it is relevant to an ongoing discussion.
  

Rule #1

This is a discussion forum.
This means that members should interact with each other in a proper discussion, and not purposely / repeatedly evade rebuttals made to them. Whilst members are not forced or required to answer every post addressed to them, ignoring them all and continuing to post similar content will fall in line with our "No Spam" rule. This includes posting links / copy-pasted content / scripture verses repeatedly, without adding your own comments or being relevant to the thread.

This is our primary rule and all other rules fall in line with this concept. The staff reserves the right to analyze each case in the spirit of this rule if said case doesn't violate the exact wording of other rules.

You copy/pasted without adding your own content.

[Randy Carson]

Catholic Lady, you need to look up moral relativity before we can go any further. You clearly don't understand what it is, as shown by deploying semantics in defense of your conception of objective morality.

Don't sweat it.

Parkers doesn't withhold any portion of the income taxes he is required to pay each year.

Consequently, he has blood on his hands for all the drone strikes that have killed innocent children.

Yes, because taxes backed by the threat of jail are perfectly comparable to church donations.

Forgive me while I chuckle at your limp argumentation.

Heh...if you REALLY believed that your taxes were being used immorally, you'd protest by going to jail. Then Al Sharpton or the ACLU or somebody would show up to defend you, and Fox News would talk about you for at least a day or two.