What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[robvalue]

As far as I'm concerned, whatever reason you may have for ignoring all the horrible shit in the bible, that's good with me. I want to live in a world with nice people. I much prefer you dismissing the OT as allegory than what we often get which is people making horrible arguments to justify the obvious atrocities therein.

It does raise the question why on earth you would keep the OT around if it's just a bunch of weird torture porn stories that no one should take seriously! I mean... what on earth is it all an allegory for? What could we ever learn from it except "might makes right" over and over again?

I'm just glad you are as horrified by the OT as I am. There are plenty of moral problems in the NT as well, though. For one, Jesus doesn't condemn slavery, in fact he talks about people must obey their masters and such. Not so cool.

[Catholic_Lady]

Hm.. Animals kill their own species more than we like to believe. I do know that felines (from lions to feral cats) will kill the babies that are not from their own group.

---

And cats are so well known for how well they cooperate in large groups, I guess that blows the whole idea out of the water.

Don't take my word for it, do a quick google search!

I learned about it on the animal channel. I was pretty traumatized by the sight of lions killing baby lion cubs.

[pocaracas]

And I know it seems unfathomable to the vast majority of you here, but Christianity really does make logical sense to me. It would honestly take more faith for me to *not* believe in God or in moral truths.

I've heard that before.... where was it?...
http://www.goddiscussion.com/113696/reco...f-atheism/

[FatAndFaithless]

Catholics are free to read the OT allegorically, or literally. If Randy believes it is literal, he is not going against Catholic faith.

Quick question, how can the church support a literal occurrence of a claimed event, but also support belief that that event didn't actually happen?

[The Grand Nudger]

Catholics are free to read the OT allegorically, or literally. If Randy believes it is literal, he is not going against Catholic faith.

Catholics are free to do whatever they please. Though they might run afoul of dogma by exercizing that particular freedom. You must read some of the OT as literal, rather than allegorical, or there is no christ. Honestly though, it's a non-issue for morality.

No one claimed that he was going against the catholic faith, but he is going down a different road than you are, eh?  I asked -you- not whether Randy was a catholic (we know that he is) but whether or not you think that Randy's rear facing moralizing is the manner in which we determine what -is- good?  Do we look at the actions and desires of god and say "this is what is good, there must be a reason that this is good", no matter what those actions are?

[pocaracas]

And cats are so well known for how well they cooperate in large groups, I guess that blows the whole idea out of the water.

Don't take my word for it, do a quick google search!

I learned about it on the animal channel. I was pretty traumatized by the sight of lions killing baby lion cubs.

Interestingly, they don't do it to their own kids, do they?
Do you remember what the hosts of that show on animal channel said?

[Catholic_Lady]

Hey, morning, welcome back.  We were just discussing the OT with Randy, a fellow catholic.  He's busy looking for ways to make douchegod of the OT "right", he seems to feel that allegory isn't a proper explanation for those stories.  God really commanded the israelites to "such and such" and so there must be a reason that all of this is right, after all, god did it.  

What say you, is this how we should determine morality?  If god engineered the death of the firstborn, must that be right?  If god called for the genocide of a competing tribe, is there any requirement that we accept this as a just act?

Good morning!

Catholics are free to believe the OT stories are allegory, or literal.

He may believe it is literal. I cannot speak for him so I don't know how he would explain this. But he did confirm that God does not change and neither does morality... and that murder was wrong then as it is now.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

However it is also a good example that we sense that one society can be better or worse morally in some ways than another. If morality is purely subjective, our opinions aren't sufficient to justify condemning one practice as morally better or worse than another. A totalitarian state that oppresses women is just as good as a democratic state that treats them as equals.

I think even with relativism we don't have to go that far. We don't need an ultimate standard of shortness or length to be justified in saying that a yardstick is longer than a ruler. The second state is objectively better in its treatment of women than the first; and an absolute moral standard is not required to be able to say so.

[Catholic_Lady]

So, your morality is based on your presupposition of God?

I believe God has defined what is and is not moral. It all comes down to the fact that he created us with dignity and sacredness, and so to hurt something sacred is objectively immoral.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Parkers-

You are absolutely correct. God is the same regardless of which testament we are discussing. Therefore, claiming that he is no is right out.

You'd probably ought to tell that to your fellow-traveler, CL.

It is also true that God does not act immorally - it is more likely that we do not understand God's actions and therefore, we judge it to be immoral by our standards and according to our understanding.

You are assuming what you wish to demonstrate. That is begging the question, which as I'm sure you can guess by now is a logical fallacy.

Can you not mount one argument without engaging in slipshod thinking?

I also reject the idea that morality has changed - at one level anyway. Murder was wrong for Cain and it is wrong for me. No change.

Therefore, ISTM that we have to examine WHY God might have instructed the Israelites to take certain actions at one point in OT history, only to command something different later in the NT.

You've already stated that you don't understand his motives. If you wish to pursue that further, have at it.

But in order to discuss that intelligently, we have to agree on some examples of that behavior. To what are you referring when you say that God acted immorally in the past?

Read the thread. I'm am not retyping my points simply because you're too lazy to read first. CL had me type them out for her at least three times, and I'm rather tired of repeating myself.