What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

I do find the notion that morality is completely relative and completely subjective, a deeply flawed one. And I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as a person who really does try to think logically. Even if I were an atheist, I don't think I could ever make sense of the notion that morality is always subjective.

This would mean that as long as a particular society or culture thinks something is moral, it is. I could never see killing infidel children or burning alive women who were rapped or cutting off a 12 year old's clitoris as ever being moral. Regardless of whether or not that particular culture thought it was, I would still believe those things are intrinsically immoral and so it would follow that I would still believe in some sort of moral truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

I do find the notion that morality is completely relative and completely subjective, a deeply flawed one. And I don't even say this as a Catholic, I say this as a person who really does try to think logically. Even if I were an atheist, I don't think I could ever make sense of the notion that morality is always subjective.

This would mean that as long as a particular society or culture thinks something is moral, it is. I could never see killing infidel children or burning alive women who were rapped or cutting off a 12 year old's clitoris as ever being moral. Regardless of whether or not that particular culture thought it was, I would still believe those things are intrinsically immoral and so it would follow that I would still believe in some sort of moral truth.

-Which is precisely what we see.  Subjective morality doesn't mean that you have to -agree- with the moralities of all of those societies. It simply accepts that what people perceive as moral (as right, as good..like the chopping of clits, or the tips of dicks..for that matter) is subjective.

I don't agree with those moralities anymore than you do, or anymore than I agree with -yours- or you agree with mine. That is precisely -why- it is subjective. That's all that subjective morality means in the first place.

[dyresand]

So how does this help your idea that god has made certain things intrinsically good?

If I were you, I think I would feel a cognitive dissonance.

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

If you wander what is good then look at the middle east and religious laws and how they treat woman and look at the society there in genera.
for one its barbaric compared to the first world and if you want a good example of what god would deem good the middle east is a prime example of 
what is good to god of the bible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So how does this help your idea that god has made certain things intrinsically good?

If I were you, I think I would feel a cognitive dissonance.

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

To be fair, your thread title is "What IS good, and how do we determine it?" Given that "we" is the plural first-person, your views on the matter are certainly open to discussion.

I mean, I get it, you're uncomfortable discussing the supernatural origins of your morality, because that's a pretty hard sell. I wouldn't want to subject such fragile arguments to questioning either, if I held them.  But that doesn't mean you get a pass. If you're not going to answer questions put to you, you're not going to be pulling your weight in this discussion.

[Catholic_Lady]

Jesus never said to ignore the old laws.  He said that he was to fulfill them and expand on them.

Remember that, Catholic.

I did not say to completely ignore and disregard the OT either. Just that it is not perfect, and as you correctly alluded to above, it is incomplete.

Jesus himself debunked a major saying in the OT when he said this: "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'[url=http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm][/url] But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

I posted that earlier in the thread but think it may have gotten lost in the discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

What happened, why did the morality of the divine change? Why was this correction required? All of those people acting with divine moral righteousness, extracting eye for an eye justice, where they somehow transformed into immoral people because of this later correction? Was this change in -their- status as moral actors retroactive?

[Catholic_Lady]

I did not ask the question to help any of my ideas. Just asked because I wanted to know your views.

I tend to distrust people who ONLY want to know what I think, but want neither to express their own views, or to consider altering their own in light of mine.   If nothing anyone else says might alter mine, I might as well talk to myself.

I like discussions and this topic is something I've genuinely always been curious about. I have a couple Atheist friends but they don't feel comfortable discussing their views with believers so we never talk about it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just want to make a general statement about that since it keeps being brought up so much:

Remember,  I am a Christian, not a Jew.

I cannot speak for Judaism, but Christianity is defined by the New Testament - the Gospels, the teachings of Christ. The OT was not perfect, and neither were the people's view of God back then. That is part of the reason why Jesus came. To show us what God is *really* like and to set the record straight on some things. While the OT talks about an eye for an eye, Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. While the OT justified stoning or killing in some instances, Jesus stopped a whole crowd of people from stoning a woman.

I am not saying any of this to "convert" anyone. I know none of you believe in any of it. I'm just saying it to clear up some misconceptions you may have about my beliefs and my religion. If anything, so that you can be better equipped to debunk Catholicism if you so feel the need to do so.  ;-)

This is a silly objection. The god of the OT and the god of the NT are the same god. Either morality changed over time -- indicating that it is malleable -- or your god has acted immorally. Your personal religion is irrelevant, because you worship the god of the Bible. All the Bible. So far as I know, the Catholic Church includes the OT in its holy text. Saying that you don't is probably not something you'd say to your priest, I'm betting.

[Foxaèr]

I posted that earlier in the thread but think it may have gotten lost in the discussion.

Did Jesus himself not ignore his own turning the cheek rule?

He got mad and overturned tables.

Do you know why?

He was human.
 
Pure and simple.   

Humans are not meant to be perfect.  We are not meant to reach for these absolutely ridiculously retarded ideals religious people impose based on a book that is perfectly imperfect.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm perfectly aware that Christians aren't Jews and that Jesus was rather ambiguous about the law in the Old Testament.  But the God of the New and Old Testaments is supposed to be the same one.  And in the OT god "really" required certain things.   And we really think those things are immoral now.  Do you believe the OT misrepresented god's views?

You are correct that we believe God was always the same. It was the people's perception of Him that was not perfectly right, including those who wrote the OT.   I believe the vast majority of the Old Testament to be allegorical rather than true events written literally. I am aware that a lot of Christians and Christian denominations take the OT quite literally, but I cannot speak for them. Only for myself as a Catholic.