What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Please read carefully. I never said it was ever moral to murder anyone. I was talking about the style of speaking and writing of the time and place. You have to put things into perspective and try to see it through the eyes of someone other than a white man from 21st century America. ;-)

-Said the moral objectivist......

No one can be this clueless without help.....sigh.

I would be contradicting myself only if I said it was morally wrong to write and story tell in the way people did thousands of years ago. Which I never said.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're expressing moral subjectivism when you tell me to stop looking at it through my 21st century white american male eyes....and that it may have been okay for them, then, to tell the story in that way...ostensibly as opposed to how it's not okay now.  See, you don't know the actual meanings of these terms and so you don't -know- when you're contradicting yourself...just as you didn't seem to realize that you turned into a moral utilitarian in defense of one of the articles of your faith -on the off chance (to you) that it wasn't true...................

Religion...poisons...everything..

You are contradicting your stated (but probably equally misunderstood) position of moral objectivism when you imply or suggest that anything that would be immoral now, could have been moral or amoral then. IOW, you -have- to condemn that narrative, even for them, if you would condemn that narrative today - even as allegory. Your comments seem to suggest that you don't think that killing someone for pulling out of his brothers wife is a very moral thing to do. Maybe I've misread you, and you think that doing so -is- good, is "right"?

To be very blunt....this -entire thread- and every thread like it that has ever appeared on these boards.... boils down to a fundamental misapprehension of morality and the terms used to classify it on the part of the individual who initiated the discussion with such a question. Why, why is it, that the faithful are so consistently misinformed about this particular subject? Why is this such a widely shared misapprehension? If I had to guess......I'd say it's because the people you've entrusted to provide you with intel have been -bullshitting- all of you, for quite some time. But perhaps you'd have some insight that would cause me to modify my summary, that would soften my suspicion?

[SteelCurtain]

-Said the moral objectivist......

No one can be this clueless without help.....sigh.

I would be contradicting myself only if I said it was morally wrong to write and story tell in the way people did thousands of years ago. Which I never said.

You can't be both a moral objectivist and then claim that things were different in another time, that another culture's mores don't apply now. That's what Rhythm is saying.

---

You are correct that the Catholics out in Africa helping people and aiding the poor are not out there passing out condoms. Nonetheless, can we still be grateful that they are out there helping the poor, even though they are not providing contraception to kids? 

I mean, that's more than either of us are doing lol. At least at this time.

I say this because I don't really agree that it should be right to bash people who are helping others because they are failing to do one thing that you would be doing. At least they're out there doing something.

I feel like this needs to be addressed. These people are going to a place that is being ravaged by AIDS, and telling them that condoms are evil, and that they will go to hell for using them. Condoms aren't only for contraception. They are also fantastically effective at preventing the spread of venereal disease. To call them evil in a place that desperately needs them is, in itself, abominable.


If I offer a starving man a loaf of bread, then shoot him in the knee, I am evil.

[pocaracas]

I don't think this line of inquiry is going anywhere, Rhythm...
The story is seen as allegorical and some *uncomfortable* details are ascribed to customs of that time and place... what is the overall moral of that particular story?

[The Grand Nudger]

That you shouldn't do things god is disgusted by, if you value your life.  You don't have to dig very deep. The narrative is unambiguous. It isn't, actually, seen as allegorical, btw, that's just an excuse Cath has been working to death due to yet another misapprehension regarding what said excuse -can do- with regards to morality. As I've already explained...and linked...and as anyone could go look for themselves...the catholic position refers to this as an -event-, an actual thing that happened...which re-enforces their position on contraception. It's part of their fucking premise.......I shit you not.

I don't expect my interactions with the faithful to go anywhere, but I think it's important, if they choose to put their beliefs out on display for me, that they get to hear what, to them, is the minority report. It may not change what they believe, but one hopes it changes the manner in which they express what they believe, and how far afield they feel justified in exercising that belief. The alternative, is shutting my mouth and bobbing my head and saying "well, if that's what you believe...I guess it's okay, kumbay-fucking-yah"

-and that just aint who I am, eh?

[pocaracas]

That you shouldn't do things god is disgusted by, if you value your life.  You don't have to dig very deep.  The narrative is unambiguous.  It isn't, actually, seen as allegorical, btw, that's just an excuse Cath has been working to death due to yet another misapprehension regarding what said excuse -can do- with regards to morality.

Not exactly a moral thing... but hey... how do you find out what things disgust god?

[Catholic_Lady]

But you very directly contradict yourself with those two statements, along with the foundational views which you continue to back (ie. contraception, homosexuality)... how do you not see this?

I realize that sacred is a religious term but it is because I believe that life is important that  I want people to have basic things such as adequate nourishment, education, health care,etc.  

What does the phrase, life is sacred mean to you Catholic Lady?

If you believe that sex has more purpose than procreation then why is it wrong for two women to express their love through sex? Why shouldn't parents use birth control if they aren't having sex to reproduce?

What I mean by life is sacred is that it must be revered. To put it simply, yes, important. Like you said. But I think sacred takes it up a level from importance, at least as far as semantics is concerned. Housework is important. Education is important. Human life is very very important. A different level of importance. :-) And of course, I think life ultimately comes from God, which I think the word "sacred" implies as well.

I'd explain sex outside of husband/wife being immoral a little differently than I'd explain contraception being immoral. The reasons ultimately come down to the same point: sex is sacred/the act that brings new life. But I'd explain the 2 a bit differently.

- I'd say since sex is the act that creates new life, it speaks a certain language of commitment and family. (since those are 2 things that should go into having kids). Using it outside of that context, whether because the 2 people are not committed for life, or because the 2 people, by their very nature, can't create life, isn't keeping with its pure, authentic form. I think all sex outside husband/wife (whether opposite sex or same sex) is immoral because of this.

(I'm also going to address this because I know peole will say "what about a husband and wife who are infertile do to hysterectomy, a disorder, etc?" It is true that these people still can't have kids. But nonetheless, all the right parts are there. Two women and two men can't reproduce because of who they are by nature. In the case of an infertile couple, they can't reproduce because something just isn't working right. But all the same elements are there, by the nature of being a man and a woman together.)

- I'd say contraception is immoral because I believe it changes sex to purposely render it infertile, as I have explained in my previous posts.

Listen, I understand this makes very little sense to you all and doesn't hold much water at all unless you believe in God and believe that He had a special purpose for creating sex. I can't take God out of the picture here. I respect and understand you all's disagreement on this and would never judge anyone who felt differently.

[The Grand Nudger]

That you shouldn't do things god is disgusted by, if you value your life.  You don't have to dig very deep.  The narrative is unambiguous.  It isn't, actually, seen as allegorical, btw, that's just an excuse Cath has been working to death due to yet another misapprehension regarding what said excuse -can do- with regards to morality.

Not exactly a moral thing... but hey... how do you find out what things disgust god?

People take it as a hint, that god doesn't like something, when he strikes them dead where they stand the very instant they do the thing that disgusts him.   

@Catholic - Appealing to natural law again are we? Whats natural must be right, huh? I'm still here, still beating the shit out of people with my fists...naturally. Gotta ask, though, whats the point of a god if we can determine morality by somethings status as natural? Just to cut you off at the pass, with the "I respect/that's your opinion" nonsense. No, it isn't, it's the catholic churches opinion, they're the ones who appeal to "natural law", in no uncertain terms. They just won't stay consistent to it in this or -any other- issue, nor are they content to let what they call the natural law have anything to do with nature. They are -lying- to you, when they advance this argument (because they can't all be so ill-informed as to not realize what they're doing). You find yourself in the unfortunate position of being hoodwinked into carrying that message -here-.

It doesn't hold any water even if you -do- believe in a god. God is irrelevant to -that- argument. The only relevance god has here, is his disgust....which might explain why it's referenced in explanation of the catholic position both now and throughout the centuries...don't you think?

[Longhorn]

You know, all I got from the above is 'everything different from how I do it is evil'. This kind of shit really doesn't suit you, CL.

[pocaracas]

You keep editing your post and adding things...

It may not change what they believe, but one hopes it changes the manner in which they express what they believe, and how far afield they feel justified in exercising that belief.

Their beliefs are simple: there is an uber-powerful god thing that created this whole Universe and put us here on Earth as some sort of personality test so he could pick the best to be his homies in what we call the eternal afterlife, in whatever form of Universe that god thing resides.
In the meantime, since he saw that humans were misbehaving with each other, he impregnated a human girl and the kid that came forth became Jesus... who walked the Earth... the whole of Judaea... teaching his very own and somewhat newish interpretation of the old writings concerning his dad.
Through some miracle, decades after the Jesus bloke goes away and becomes one third of the original god, someone put down those teaching into writing and they're mostly trustworthy.

Not exactly a moral thing... but hey... how do you find out what things disgust god?

People take it as a hint, that god doesn't like something, when he strikes them dead where they stand the very instant they do the thing that disgusts him.

When was the last time you saw a god killing someone?