What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Won2blv]

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.

Is it possible for actions to be recorded in the bible without them also being condoned? Also, are you saying that there is not morally justified reason for some of the actions that were condoned, such as slavery?

[Randy Carson]

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.

Have you ever spoken to a Catholic priest who made that claim for himself, becca?

I would venture a guess that no PRIESTS think that priests actually possess ultimate moral authority.

[Randy Carson]

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

[abaris]

Also, are you saying that there is not morally justified reason for some of the actions that were condoned, such as slavery?

Read again what I wrote. I couldn't make my position any clearer than to say I don't judge ancient societies based on what they lived by at their time.

But time moved on. Simple enough?

[Randy Carson]

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.

Well, there it is. Evidence of what I said earlier.

The real reason non-believers are so pissed off at the Catholic Church is because of the hypocrisy of a tiny percentage of the priesthood.

[Randy Carson]

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.

Agreed. The actions of a few have tainted all...in the minds of those who are less discerning.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Albis, that was just an example to show the difference between objective morality and personal culpability. Did you understand the differences? Would you agree there? If not, which part did you not agree with?

You are correct that judging people is not right. But we can still judge the morality of an objective act.

There are places in the world that consider slavery perfectly fine, normal, and moral.
There are places in the world that consider it perfectly fine, normal, and moral to burn your daughter alive if she gets raped.

But those acts are still objectively immoral, no matter what that society thinks. Don't you want those societies to stop doing these things? If so, then you too are what you describe in your very lest sentence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Then why are you complaining about my language here? Your incoherence grows with every post.

Because it ISN'T okay to speak in certain ways before the Supreme Court Justices, and it does NOT strengthen the arguments of the attorneys who do argue before them.

Yours either.

In case you missed it, I'm not mounting an argument.

You're expected to read for comprehension. If that is beyond your ken, you should probably not reply to troublesome posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Agreed. The actions of a few have tainted all...in the minds of those who are less discerning.

You're one of those "few" tainting things, Randy.  Let that sink in.

[abaris]

The real reason non-believers are so pissed off at the Catholic Church is because of the hypocrisy of a tiny percentage of the priesthood.

You don't get it or don't want to get it. The percentage doesn't interest. It's the systemic coverup going on for decades that's the problem, which is/was an entirely political decision. It's the shipping around of bad apples to different parishes to give them ample opportunity to reoffend instead of handing them over to the legal authorities as any other organisation would be obliged to do.