What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[pocaracas]

Rob, that's not what they teach at sunday-school!
It's a lie!

[Catholic_Lady]

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?

Just free to determine whether they believe the OT stories are allegorical or literal. And when I say free I just mean they can do so without going against Church teaching.

Yes. If we believe God is perfect then it would logically follow that He has never done anything wrong, ragardless of whether someone believes in the literal OT or not.

---

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?

It wasn't their own kids, it was other another lion's cubs. He said something along the lines of felines killing babies that are not their own. I know feral cats do this too.

[pocaracas]

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?

It wasn't their own kids, it was other another lion's cubs. He said something along the lines of felines killing babies that are not their own. I know feral cats do this too.

And why do they do that? Someone around here has already answered...

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

They could argue that men are superior and that it is thus immoral and disgraceful to treat women as equals. And then who's right? Us for saying women should be treated equally, or them for saying they shouldn't? Do you really believe no one is objectively correct here?

[robvalue]

Thought crime:

Matthew 5:27–28:

“You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

According to this, I've committed adultery (hundreds of) thousands of times. In reality, I've done it zero times.

[Catholic_Lady]

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?

Sorry, I was attempting sarcasm.

whoops!

[abaris]

Because the OT is not all torture stories. There are many good life lessons in the OT. It just isn't complete.

Jesus has never condoned slavery. You must be taking some things horribly out of context. Everything about the entirety of His teachings points to being against  treating people badly and that would include enslaving them.

Because you understandably fail to see the context of the OT. It was written by and for a half nomadic people, which really went on brutal raids, owned slaves and did women treat like cattle to be sold off to the highest bidder. It's kind of a set of law for an archaic paternalistic society. These weren't very civilized people, even more so, if compared to their contemporary neighbours.

As for slavery, Jesus didn't call it good, but he didn't condemn the practice either. Paul on the other hand outright asks slaves to obey even brutal masters. Here's an apologetic article trying to do the mental acrobatics, making these issues look good. I don't know the author, but it's obvious that he either doesn't know his history or willfully ignored the parts not fitting his narrative when it comes to Rome and slavery at the time in question. Without turning this into a history lesson, there was a big difference between house slaves and slaves working the fields. And house slaves being treated rather well is due to the fact that they were mostly highly trained professionals and therefore an expensive commodity.

But here's the article, that at least doesn't deny there is a slavery issue in the bible.

http://www.gty.org/resources/bible-qna/B...nd-slavery

[pocaracas]

They could argue that men are superior and that it is thus immoral and disgraceful to treat women as equals. And then who's right? Us for saying women should be treated equally, or them for saying they shouldn't? Do you really believe no one is objectively correct here?

If the system works "ad eternum", then why would it be wrong?

[Catholic_Lady]

Then why do you balk at the death of the firstborn?  God decreed this, and god defines the good.

I agree, btw, they are being immoral regardless of what they believe......but this is, again, my subjective morality, and in this conversation -our- subjective morality.  You and I are perfectly capable of reaching the same conclusion.  Now, if I asked you -why- it was wrong, would you tell me that it is because god has defined it as such?  Don't you think there might be a more persuasive, and entirely less fanciful answer to that question?  Would you approach ISIS with the killer "god defines it" argument of moral superiority?  

-because I wouldn't.  I find this no more persuasive than -you- do when ISIS says that god has defined the good, and that -their- actions are the divinely just ones.

Lol because I do not believe this ever happened!

It is wrong because human life is sacred, and destroying something sacred is wrong.

I have no idea what I would say to Isis. I don't think about those things.

[robvalue]

How can anyone be objectively correct? How can an indifferent universe have an opinion?

God's opinion is just an opinion, after all.