What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Cato]

I would have used a different example if I were Catholic.

Why, Cato?

Because claiming fealty for a religious organization that systematically sheltered child sexual predators doesn't mesh well with the idea that Christianity doesn't condone the torture of children.

[Thumpalumpacus]

My apologies.

I did not go as far as to examine other religions, just used basic knowledge of what I already knew about them. I just examined Catholicism and decided that it made sense to me. If I had felt that it didn't, then I would start examining other beliefs, including atheism.  

So you didn't examine other religions and found your Catholicism most logical, as you asserted earlier in this thread.

Del Rio. It's about 6 hours away from Austin!

Figured as much -- I'm former Air Force myself, but thankfully was never stationed there ... I was at Carswell in Fort Worth, when it was an active-duty base.

[Whateverist]

Why didn't God allow marriage between two men or two women and define it to include them?

You would have to ask Him that question.

But I think men and women have certain differences that compliment each other and set themselves up for the best scenario for having and raising a child. I think if God intended for 2 men or 2 women to bond together as a family unit, he would have made it so that they could reproduce.

Hey I thought you said you accepted evolution.  I'm not sure what to make of that acceptance if you can still say this.

[rexbeccarox]

I want to thank you, C_L for keeping a respectful tone, not breaking any rules, and not strawmanning here. You have no idea how refreshing it is, being that we tend to attract a lot of disingenuous assholes.

But now there's this:


Do you believe it's not moral for Catholics?  Or everyone?  After all, you believe in objective morality...

Hey, thank you so much! I appreciate that. I'm sorry some of us Christians can be so rude sometimes. :/

No need to apologize for others.

I believe it is objectively immoral, yes.

So, you didn't change your mind on what's objectively moral, even after you realized this:

But culpability changes depending on the person. So for someone of a different faith who has no idea or genuinely believes differently, they probably have very little fault, if any.

What's the point of making it something immoral, then?

And honestly, I do believe God shows great mercy for gay folks who act on their attraction, whether catholic or not.

Why do you believe this?  

It must be extremely difficult to have to live a celibate life and to never get to feel the closeness of a life partner.

But people wouldn't have to live life like that if your ilk didn't tell people it was immoral.  Conflating homosexuality with child molestation is a really bad trick, too.  That is disingenuous, dishonest, and just plain vile.  How moral is that?

I'm sure God understands that better than any of us

Then why would he make it objectively immoral?

and I think He is very merciful to these people.

Again: why do you think that?

When speaking about objective actions, we can say whether and action is moral or immoral in and of itself. But we can never judge the state of another  person's soul.

Why; because you say so?  You're allowed to judge everything but someone's soul?  I don't think that's what it says in the Bible...

[Foxaèr]

Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Condoning atrocities perpetrated by the church does not bode well for you or your religion.

[rexbeccarox]

Actually, the percentage of Catholic priests who molest children is equal to or slightly less than the percentage of men in general who molest children. The greatest number of people who molest children are teachers. So just know that the molestation of children is not some sort of "Catholic priest thing." People from all faiths and all walks of life can do horrible things, and priests are no different.

Condoning atrocities perpetrated by the church does not bode well for you or your religion.

Not to mention the fact that there are any child molesters at all involved with an organization which claims to have The Objective Moral Truths.

[Catholic_Lady]

You may not agree with my beliefs about sexual morality, and that is perfectly fine. I understand, and I wouldn't expect you to agree.
Regardless, if 2 men or 2 women want to be in a romantic relationship, it is their right to do so and I still respect them as people and I respect their right. But I cannot say I believe it to be morally good.

Please make a case why same sex relationships are 'not morally good'

See, there you go with more of that self-contradictory bullshit: I respect it, but I think it's wrong. Nuh uh, not buying that shit. Calling somebody's relationship wrong is disrespectful.

Be a bigot if you must. But at the very least, be honest about it.

I believe they are not morally good because I believe God created sex to be used between husband and wife. And so using it outside of it's intended context is not moral. This isn't just about same sex relations, it is about opposite sex relations too. I have many friends who sleep with their boyfriends/girlfriends, and I don't think what they are doing is moral. If they asked me what my views were, I would be honest with them and tell them. But I would never just come out and start bugging them about it. You are perfectly capable of loving someone and respecting someone without thinking everything they do is good.

As an example, you think my beliefs are wrong, but I think you would still treat me with kindness and respect if we met. It is possible.

Would you agree though that people who are attracted to children "shouldn't act on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature?"
If so, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with thinking it is not always moral to act on impulses. You just don't think it's right in this particular case.

You really just did that.


Wow.

You really just equated a relationship between two consenting adults to child rape.

That's low. And also, incredibly dumb.

Unlike you, I can make a case for why acting on pedophilic impulses is wrong: it is always without the child's informed consent, therefore always rape. Homosexuality is not.

And that comparison is positively disgusting.

I think I lost half of my respect for you from that post alone. I still can't fathom how you can come off so sweet and hold such hateful beliefs.

Please read carefully. I did not equate the 2, nor would I ever. Because I do not think the 2 are equal. I did though, challenge the assertion made that it is wrong to say someone should refrain from "acting on the impulse that is part of who they are and their human nature."

---

Oof..that pedophilia comparison is rough...  It should be obvious that we're talking about consenting adults.

I think I may have caused some misunderstanding. Please read my responses above.

[FatAndFaithless]

Bringing in pedophilia to the discussion is entirely irrelevant though, as we're speaking about consenting adults.

[cocunningham]

So I'm a bit late to the party and I'm afraid I don't have time to read all of the posts but my answer to the original post I don't think morality is based on religion as much as you. I'm sure others have posted examples in which accepted morality changes within the bible based on the views of society at large. One such example is stoning was once consider moral now it wouldn't be.

As to what is my moral perspective it's somewhat complex but to put it simply I feel putting others believe yourself is moral whereas hurting others for personal gain (physical or for emotional pleasure) is immoral. However each scenario I measure separately rather than saying simply murder is bad as I don't feel the assassination attempt on Hitler was an immoral act. Killing can be the moral decision in some (albeit limited) scenarios in my opinion.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why, Cato?

Because claiming fealty for a religious organization that systematically sheltered child sexual predators doesn't mesh well with the idea that Christianity doesn't condone the torture of children.

Cato, the Catholic religion does not "shelter" these people. The Catholic religion teaches that it is wrong to molest children, and to shelter people who do wrong like this.

Yes, there were people who were Catholic who did horrible things. There were also people who were Catholic who did another horrible thing by covering it up. There are bad people in every group, and Catholics are no different.

Catholicism does not condone any of this behavior. In fact, it vehemently teaches against it.