What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Homeless Nutter]

Do catholics say that priests hold the ultimate moral authority? The elders in my religion are just looked at as men that we can trust to guide us in a spiritually mature way but that it would almost be comical to expect perfection out of them

No one is expecting "perfection". Not f***ing kids is hardly much to ask.

[Ravenshire]

The irony of this is that you know this is true because everyone goes absolutely ballistic when a Catholic priest commits a sin. Why? Because it is understood even by atheists that Christians are supposed to live by a higher standard. When they fail to do so, the hypocrisy is seen by all.

Once again you misrepresent atheists. We do not go ballistic when a priest rapes a member of their flock because we think "Christians are supposed to live by a higher standard." We go ballistic when a priest rapes a member of their flock because the church claims that those same priests have some kind of moral authority.

Quit twisting words and positions to misrepresent others, Randy. Not only is it dishonest, it's repulsive as well.

[Ravenshire]

Not from what Ive seen here on this very thread.

When we were discussing the sex abuse scandal many pages back, numerous members of this forum specifically said that it's worse when priests do it because they are "supposed to be men of god."

This was addressed by multiple atheists in this site on this very thread.

Actually, no; what we've objected to is that priests themselves claim to have the ultimate moral authority. I would venture a guess that no atheists think that priests actually possess that.

May I please have permission to give about 5,000 kudos to this?!?

[Longhorn]

Actually, no; what we've objected to is that priests themselves claim to have the ultimate moral authority. I would venture a guess that no atheists think that priests actually possess that.

May I please have permission to give about 5,000 kudos to this?!?

Only if I get 10% interest

[Jenny A]

And, I'm not the least bothered by the man who does her in his head.  What he does in the space of his own mind is fine by me.  Seriously.  In the case of imagining sex I'm really, really not bothered.  In the case of imaging murder, I'm only bothered if he's working himself up to the actual crime by thinking it out rather than just fantasizing.  It's acts in the real world that concern me.

Now, there are circumstances in which if someone obsesses about sex with a woman he can't have, or murder that he might hurt himself mentally.  That is a good reason for not obsessing, but the victim would be himself not others.

That's fine, Jenny, but this is just your personal opinion. God has called us to a higher standard.

The irony of this is that you know this is true because everyone goes absolutely ballistic when a Catholic priest commits a sin. Why? Because it is understood even by atheists that Christians are supposed to live by a higher standard. When they fail to do so, the hypocrisy is seen by all.

I doubt anyone would go ballistic outside of other priests to discover, say pornography in a priest's possession or that they masturbate (and I'm pretty sure they do).  It's actual child molestation that's the problem.   And the outrage is not about the priests so much as the church covering it up and setting them up to do it over and over in new communities.

So, it's perfectly okay to be consumed by hatred as long as....what? I don't say or do anything to anyone else?

Morally? Yes.  For your own health no.  It would be a lousy way to live.  

And if such a god existed and he did know them, then I would appreciate very much if he didn't spy and left people's inner thoughts to themselves.   You proposed standard is reminiscent of Orwell's 1984 and replacing Big Brother with god makes it no better.

That is exactly the point I have made again and again concerning the "evidence" of God that you and others keep demanding.

If God were to intrude into our individual lives in visible ways, then you and others would resent Him.

So, sending people to hell isn't intruding?  There aren't other kinds of evidence than mind reading or personal intrusion?  Really?  You've got to be kidding.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are 114 pages lol. Yall are gonna have to either take my word, or assume I'm lying/delusional.

I've been obliging you on that count since page 1.  I haven't even had to choose.  I take you at your word -and- think that you're a delusional liar.   

[Mudhammam]

No one is expecting "perfection". Not f***ing kids is hardly much to ask.

But clearly it is much for some people whose psychological propensities render children sexually attractive.

[Catholic_Lady]

Also, there's one thing I really don't understand. You're constantly talking about the times being different when the bible has been written and we shouldn't apply our standards to the people of old. Yes, we can agree on that, but for me it follows that moral standards are relative, since, well, societies and times keep changing. But you argue, correct me if I'm wrong, that morals are somehow eternal. That really seems contradictory.

There are 2 things at play here:

1. Moral objectivity

2. Personal culpability

An act may be objectively immoral as the act in and of itself. But the person's culpability for commiting that act, is subjective.

For example, an insane person can go into psychotics and commit mass murder. Yes, the ACT they have committed is an objectively immoral act.

But considering the person's state of mind, their culpability is lessened. That person's culpability is less than that of a a person who committed the same act but did so fully conscientiously. The insane person is held at a lower standard and should thus receive less severe punishment, if any at all.

Does that make more sense?

It was a little more than that with some people. I'm pretty sure "men of god" was used once or twice at least.

Probably because sarcasm isn't readable but only audible. "Men of god" meaning they're riding the high horse, trying to assume the moral authority and handing out marching orders on how to behave. If you're doing that kind of thing, you better have an impeccable record.

Could very possibly be.

[Homeless Nutter]

The irony of this is that you know this is true because everyone goes absolutely ballistic when a Catholic priest commits a sin.[...]

No, dumbass. We go ballistic when an organization, that advertises itself as an authority on morality, WILLFULLY COVERS UP the crimes of its members, in order to keep up appearances of moral superiority. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Oh, and BTW - "sin" is just a clever word that lets you put child rape in the same category as masturbation, or cursing. We don't give a f*** about "sin". It's crime and perversion of justice that p***es us off.

[abaris]

Does that make more sense?  

No, not really. And I don't mean that in an offensive way. The old ones weren't insane or incapable of seeing what they were doing. They only had different standards to live by. That's why I always keep arguing that all the books of the bible are mirrors of their time and of the societies where they were compiled.

I don't judge these people for seeing the described things as good and just. I also don't judge people who still want to introduce an at least 2000 years old behavioral codex into their personal lives. What I have a real problem with, are those people, who want to do that for the whole of society.