What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

"Your money or your life, your choice".....

People often choose to do something shitty in the face of a being willing to inflict great harm upon them if they don't.  I think it cheapens the notion of choice, and your excuses certainly cheapen the morality of choosing, in my eyes.

[SteelCurtain]

But you said that morality was one of them, in so many words. The entire point that Rhythm was responding to was your idea that things in Onan's time made it an okay idea for him to be put to death and for the people of that time to write about it. You have a remarkable ability to distance yourself from the things you literally just said.

Also, why is it that you chose not to respond to the second part of my post?

I'm sorry but I believe you misunderstood me.

The "being ok to be put to death for it" was never true. It is not ok to be put to death for this or any reason. I have said this. Writing a story where someone get's put to death though, is not immoral.

I don't think I have. Reread my post, quoted above. The one where you conveniently edited out the word that makes all the difference. The "idea" that it would be okay for Onan to be put to death by your god has real meaning in that society, regardless of what you are willing to admit. If your god thought this would be a good way to communicate to that society, you need to come up with what has changed from then until now that has nothing to do with society's mores.

ETA: The bolded is a pretty damning statement to your arguments... you should really consider the impact of that statement in light of your idea that morality hasn't changed.

---

What was the second part? I'm sorry. There are a lot of posts and I can't get to all of them sometimes. Especially if they are very long posts that require a long answer.

This:

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sexual thoughts are not in and of themselves immoral.

Jesus disagrees:

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[a]

28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Or has that been changed as well?

******************

Also, from another thread:

So, here you are...a bunch of atheists who hate the Catholic Church discussing the disciplinary measures implemented in an institution set up by the Government of Ireland to provide shelter (and incarceration when necessary) for "fallen women" (prostitutes) and women who were pregnant out of wedlock (with no other support) in another country a century ago and measuring them by OUR standards and culture.

[emphasis in original -- Thump]

Nice to see that Randy is a moral relativist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Here is the Catechism's reasons of why contraception is immoral: (note, it does not simply say "because Onan got killed for it")

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153 

Bolding is mine...what do you think they're talking about here...when they state that the magisterium has expounded upon this doctrine on numerous occasions?  What is it that they were expounding -over-?  I'll give you three guesses and two mulligans.

At this point I have to ask, how -involved- have you been, throughout your life, in the church? Is it just someplace you went to on sundays? You seem to be unaware of the doctrine...even when you read over it and quote it in response....it just escapes you that I am talking about the same thing the catechism is talking about........and I'll let you in on something...I'm talking about it that way because that's the way I was -taught- to discuss the issue.....by the church.

It all begins with the assertion that god has proscribed a certain purpose to "the marriage act"...that purpose is explained and elaborated upon in scripture, gods position on the purpose and those who defy that purpose are -elucidated- by stories such as that of Onan. -That- is what the magisterium was expounding upon. It all starts with what god desires for this, and you wouldn't know what god desired (and what he didn't) where it not for the story of Onan, and the interpretation that catholics have assigned official status to.

Of course they don't say "because god killed Onan for it" because that sounds horrible (and they're not in the business of driving customers away..not that they haven;t said it, and been comfortable saying it, to audiences both past and present)......I say it, because I have no qualms about cutting through the obfuscatory bullshit they have -clothed- that statement in.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm sorry, but the Church isn't forcing people to do anything. Of course, if we believe there is a moral way of doing something, we want people to follow it because we believe it's best for them. But at the end of the day it is their choice, as it should be.

Of course it isn't. It doesn't have to. It's enough that it indoctrinates generation after generation of children, who force their kids to go through the same.

Sects don't force people to do anything. At the end if the day, it's their choice to follow.

Emotional blackmail, threatening with eternal pain and controlling people's sexual urges is what's best for them? Lying about things you cannot possibly know for your personal gain is best for people?

Maybe it works out for some.

It infuriates me how you fail to see how harmful your church's doctrine is. Maybe it's my personal bias, right.

But since you're a moral objectivist, is threatening with torture moral?

Trust me, there are plenty of Catholics who do not follow some very fundamental Catholic laws about sexuality. The vast majority don't. I think if the Church was orchastrating massive brainwashing, more Catholics would follow their own laws. ;-)

I cannot relate to the things you describe above. I have not had those experiences at all in my whole life of being a devout Catholic and growing up in the Church. The way I was taught about sexual morality was far from "don't do it or you're going to hell." I am sorry if your experiences have been different, and as a member of the Church I take responsibility on our behalf for the poor way in which we approached the subject.

Yes, it is.

---

"Your money or your life, your choice".....

People often choose to do something shitty in the face of a being willing to inflict great harm upon them if they don't.  I think it cheapens the notion of choice, and your excuses certainly cheapen the morality of choosing, in my eyes.

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are referring to here.

[Longhorn]

Trust me, there are plenty of Catholics who do not follow some very fundamental Catholic laws about sexuality. The vast majority don't. I think if the Church was orchastrating massive brainwashing, more Catholics would follow their own laws. ;-)

Doesn't matter. They're told to.

I cannot relate to the things you describe above. I have not had those experiences at all in my whole life of being a devout Catholic and growing up in the Church. The way I was taught about sexual morality was far from "don't do it or you're going to hell." I am sorry if your experiences have been different, and as a member of the Church I take responsibility on our behalf for the poor way in which we approached the subject.

No, you fucking aren't sorry. You think it's best for me.

You can't 'take responsibility'. Vicarious redemption, really? Don't try to take away from what someone did. You don't even know what you want to 'take responsibility for'.

Yes, it is.

Wow. Just.....wow. you got me fucking baffled.

[The Grand Nudger]

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are referring to here.

-and that's the problem.  Religion...... poisons....... everything.  The "choice" you are defending comes with the not so subtle implication that if you "choose" to do otherwise....god will do bad things to you, and bad things will happen to you.  

"Your money or your life, your choice".  For a person so well versed in biblical allegory...you're pretty bad at spotting an allegory, eh?  A person might wonder how adept you -actually- are at spotting allegory in the bible, especially seeing as how you've stated that neither church nor scripture provides a decoder ring.

You're kind of winging it, don't you think?

[Aroura]

Did she just say threatening with torture is moral???

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think I have. Reread my post, quoted above. The one where you conveniently edited out the word that makes all the difference. The "idea" that it would be okay for Onan to be put to death by your god has real meaning in that society, regardless of what you are willing to admit. If your god thought this would be a good way to communicate to that society, you need to come up with what has changed from then until now that has nothing to do with society's mores.  

ETA: The bolded is a pretty damning statement to your arguments... you should really consider the impact of that statement in light of your idea that morality hasn't changed.

I honestly have no clue what you mean about editing out the word "idea" lol. I don't remember editing, but if I did it was to better explain what I meant.

It would not be ok to kill Onan. Even if they thought it would be.

What I was saying was to consider the different way in which people wrote and talked back then. They wrote "God killed Onan." Does this mean God actually killed Onan? Does this mean that Onan even existed? In my opinion, no. This means that allegory was very popular back then and they were telling a parable to convey a particular message. That message being, it is immoral to behave in the way this character did. You have to put yourself back in their time to understand why they wrote things the way they did, and that's what I was telling Rhythm.

It's also important to keep in mind that God did not write the OT. If He did, we would claim the bible and the OT as perfect, but we don't. We do not claim the bible as infallible. The bible is about God, but it is written through the filter of man.

It is not perfect. So to address your point, God did not necessarily think this was a good way to communicate with that society. He did not write it. That society thought this was a good way to communicate with that society. They were the ones who wrote it in accordance to their imperfect perception of God.


I don't understand why my bolded quote is so damaging. Can you clarify?

[The Grand Nudger]

-and alllllllll of this shit, in service of asking us "what -is- good, and how do we determine it".  Seems to me that this is the sort of question our catholic friend should be grappling with, as it's not providing any particular difficulty, relative to the torturous process we see unfolding here before us in the case of a catholic morality.

Are you here to make off with our justifications....like your church did so many years ago to those poor pagan fuckers?