What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I think the question of "How do we determine what's good?", should be a question religious people are asking themselves, not atheists. Since religious people are claiming to get their morality through divine command, how could they possibly know what information they are getting is correct? How do they know god is a good guy without any moral compass of their own to make such a judgement.

All those things are part of our Christian beliefs.

With that being said, these questions are basically the same as another question that has been asked here already in several different ways, "why do you believe what you believe?"

There is no simple answer, but Randy did a great job of addressing it in a way that I myself could never be eloquent enough to put into words. It's in this post, and others. If I get the chance I will look for one of them and repost it here for you.

---

I think CL wants to say that one society has it right and another has it wrong. But of course, both societies will say they have it right, and often divinely so. Neither has any "proof" that they are correct.

Close, but no. :-)

Morality does not depend on society in the first place. That is why I believe morality is unchanging, and that is why I believe certain things are wrong even if our society, or others, consider them good.

I believe morality comes from God.

[Nope]

[quote='Catholic_Lady' pid='970172' dateline='1434873276']
Before I wrap it up here, I also want to once again point out that the most important thing to remember are a couple of Jesus' greatest commandments: Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemy. Does it really make sense that a person who tells us to love everyone like ourselves, including our worst enemies, would condone treating people like property?

Before I lost my faith, I kept telling myself that the god I worshipped couldn't be the same one I read about in the Old Testament. My god was a loving being and I had the bible verses to prove it. The problem was that the bible presented two versions of god. One was the Jesus in the Gospels who healed the sick and let the children come to him. The other god was not just the cruel, vindictive god of the Old Testament but the revengeful Jesus in Revelation that was going to destroy the world. Eventually, I realized that the only way for those traits to work together was if god was fictional

Part of the problem on this and other threads is that atheists take Christian description of their god seriously. We expect the bible god to act consistently in the ways that his followers claim that he should. So, it is hard for non Christians to understand why this omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god is so weak in the face of evil or even iron chariots.

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

   If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

rob seems to have missed the part where slavery was limited to six years. Not exactly the kind of slavery we had in this country, was it? And the primary purpose of such slavery was to pay off debt. IOW, it was a means by which those who were poor could SURVIVE.

Randy, this was true for the Hebrews not for the captive taken in war.

Exodus 21:20-21

20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property

So,  as long as the slave lived for a couple of days, all was good. Beating your slave until they nearly died was acceptable.

CL, do you see how this Whack-a-Mole game is played? First, the gang took issue with pedophile priests. Then, after I offered some agreement but also defense of the more hypocritical outrage, the Magdalen Laundries became the topic du jour.

We are a group of people who like to debate so yes, as long as the conversation is interesting, we will keep have the discussion and it will branch out into many different directions.  This forum is not for everyone. You need a thick skin. Most of the atheists on this site have no desire to evangelize you so there is no need to hide behind niceness to win you to our cause. If you aren't used to it, that kind of honesty can be disconcerting for some people.

[Mr.wizard]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You[emphasis added]!

Another mature response. ^  Sheesh...I feel like I'm in high school again.

I'm not defending anything. I'm explaining it...and why it is not as black and white as you anti-christers seem to believe. The Israelites were a stubborn, stiff-necked people. Here are a few assessments from various points in Israel's history:

• Exodus 32:9 “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.
  
• Nehemiah 9:16 “But they, our ancestors, became arrogant and stiff-necked, and they did not obey your commands.
  
• Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!
  

From Moses to Nehemiah to Stephen...you can see what God was dealing with. Consequently, God had to bring the Israelites along slowly...forming His people little by little...weaning them away from false gods and other beliefs and customs.

Here's a classic from Jesus:

Matthew 19
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 Jesus replied, “[b]Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Catch that?

Moses permitted the people to divorce but Jesus commanded us to step up our game.

Same with slavery. It was permitted, but now it's not. We've been molded by God.[/b]

What you just posted in bold has absolutely nothing to do with slavery, another dishonest attempt to avoid the point. You tried to accuse people of misrepresenting slavery of the bible while leaving out a huge portion of it and trying to downplay it. Your not trying to explain it because if you where you would not have left out a lot of the really heinous parts, what you are trying to do is downplay the atrocities commanded by your pathetic holy book.

[Randy Carson]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You!

Not to mention that the six year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews.  There was no time limit for foreign slaves owned by Hebrews.  Compare Leviticus 25:44-45 which deals with non-Hebrew slaves with Exodus 21:1-5 which specifies Hebrew slaves.  The six year rule also didn't apply to Hebrew girls sold into slavery by their fathers though that's rather complicated as in that cause the slavery is in part a kind of concubinage. Exodus 21:7-11

Fair enough, Jenny.

But this does not undermine my premise that God was training a people over the course of a long period of time.

If you want a curved piece of furniture, you have to work with the wood very slowly. Are people much different? See the Father's handiwork?

[SteelCurtain]

I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think.

You imply a dichotomy where none exists. I agree with all teachings of the Catholic Church.

Okay. Fuck off then. We have all the links to the catechism. When we have a question as to what you think, we'll search it up. No reason for you to be here.

The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

Rubbish. The fact that I have some of MY thoughts put down in Word is because I have been doing this a very, very long time. Why reinvent the wheel?

Case in point...Spacetime joined the forum a few days ago. Same arguments, different day. How foolish is it to type my fingers off telling him in different words what I have already told you and others.

My very point. It's obvious when you do it. It's shitty forum etiquette. You've been asked to stop. And then you wonder why everyone you encounter has the same response to you.

Now, let's be honest: you anti-christers (hey, that has a ring to it) do something similar...instead of even bothering to post AT ALL (which is what I do), you simply say, "Look, asshole, this has all been discussed before. Do a search in the forum and stop wasting everyone's time."

Wow. THAT makes for great discussion, doesn't it? But I'm given that kind of response frequently...especially when I was newer here.

Maybe you are happy to have the same discussion over and over, but a lot of us aren't. We're here for discussion, and when Christians come in here and want to have the same conversation we've had 100 times before, acting like it's completely new information for all of us and playing the "gotcha" game, you'd be happy if we all trotted out the old Word files and posted pages at each other? What kind of twisted version of discussion are you interested in? So if you want to see our responses to the very same questions you are asking, search it up. If you want to spin off a thread from a response, by all means go ahead.

It's why C_L has fit in so well here, and has a 100+ page thread yet I haven't had to send her a single PM despite your blustering buffoonery your first couple of weeks here that we just want to hate on all Catholics and don't want to hear any other point of view.

rexbeccarox has. Twice.

And let's not kid one another: CL's avatar has got more than a few of the guys here dialing the aggression in their responses to her way, way down.

I did not say she hasn't been speedbumped or sent unofficial warnings. I said I hadn't had to. How many times were you PM'ed your first week? How many times did we have to explain our rules here? How many times were you publicly adamant that we are doing it wrong and we should play by your rules instead?

Also, are you implying that we didn't know that Catholic_Lady was a woman before she posted her avatar? Or are you just attracted to her and projecting like you usually do?

Your persecution complex fits the narrative that your life must needs follow, else your cookie cutter world which the Catholic Church has laid out for you (Catechismicly!) doesn't look right.

The way I phrased it was more tongue in cheek than anything, but you do take it to a new level, Randy.

If it is your opinion that I'm following the teaching of the Catholic Church at a whole new level, then I am honored. I would disagree, but thank you.

I am implying that you are shitty at this. You have presented us with a Catholic automaton who will repeat catechism and prepared dialogue on demand, and thence have done more for atheism on these boards in the last month or so than anyone in a while. Preesh.

[rexbeccarox]

It's why C_L has fit in so well here, and has a 100+ page thread yet I haven't had to send her a single PM despite your blustering buffoonery your first couple of weeks here that we just want to hate on all Catholics and don't want to hear any other point of view.

rexbeccarox has. Twice.

And let's not kid one another: CL's avatar has got more than a few of the guys here dialing the aggression in their responses to her way, way down.

Yes, I have... because she broke two different rules, which she has acknowledged that she understands, and which she hasn't done again. Unlike you, who continues to flout the rules after being told countless times. No one else has as much trouble with the them as you do. It's amazing. We aren't here to follow your rules, Randy.

Also, I can't speak for other people, but I've been much more civil to C_L in general because she hasn't abused the forum the way you do. I'm bisexual, but I'm not really attracted to her (C_L, you're beautiful; just not my type), and her avatar does nothing for me. I treat her better than you because she treats the forum better than you do; also, she doesn't deliberately flout the rules to see what she can get away with, thus making staff's job harder.

Get over yourself.

[Randy Carson]

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

See posts 1325 & 1334.

[Metis]

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

See posts 1325 & 1334.

Nice dodge, but you're missing the core point still. God is all good, but gives oddly specific instructions about how to sin.

Unless you want to say it wasn't a sin then, it's fine to commit evil to obtain a greater good (learning) and that morality is relative and subject to change?

[Mr.wizard]

I think the question of "How do we determine what's good?", should be a question religious people are asking themselves, not atheists. Since religious people are claiming to get their morality through divine command, how could they possibly know what information they are getting is correct? How do they know god is a good guy without any moral compass of their own to make such a judgement.

All those things are part of our Christian beliefs.

With that being said, these questions are basically the same as another question that has been asked here already in several different ways, "why do you believe what you believe?"

There is no simple answer, but Randy did a great job of addressing it in a way that I myself could never be eloquent enough to put into words. It's in this post, and others. If I get the chance I will look for one of them and repost it here for you.

---

I think CL wants to say that one society has it right and another has it wrong. But of course, both societies will say they have it right, and often divinely so. Neither has any "proof" that they are correct.

Close, but no. :-)

Morality does not depend on society in the first place. That is why I believe morality is unchanging, and that is why I believe certain things are wrong even if our society, or others, consider them good.

I believe morality comes from God.

Right they are part of your Christian belief, you believe your morals come from god. My question was how do you know the morals your getting from god are good, it is impossible to judge the morality of god when you have no morality of your own.

[Nope]

Not to mention that the six year rule only applied to Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews.  There was no time limit for foreign slaves owned by Hebrews.  Compare Leviticus 25:44-45 which deals with non-Hebrew slaves with Exodus 21:1-5 which specifies Hebrew slaves.  The six year rule also didn't apply to Hebrew girls sold into slavery by their fathers though that's rather complicated as in that cause the slavery is in part a kind of concubinage. Exodus 21:7-11

Fair enough, Jenny.

But this does not undermine my premise that God was training a people over the course of a long period of time.

If you want a curved piece of furniture, you have to work with the wood very slowly. Are people much different? See the Father's handiwork?

I'm confused, what does training people over a very long period of years have to do with the verses Jenny used? So, a Hebrew virgin that might be very young, is sold to a man by the person she probably trusted most, her dad. Her dad knows she will be raped and used for sex and yet he sells her anyway. Remember, bronze aged people were humans just like we are. The girl would have felt the betrayal and pain that any person would feel in such a situation. Her life meant nothing apparently to this god because he was using her suffering was being used to train some future group. Is that what you are saying, Randy?