What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

Well, for one thing, Jesus and God are one and the same. But yes, God sent a part of himself (whom we refer to as the Son) to die for us. But Jesus  could still have chosen to opt out of it. He still had free will. Being God, Jesus could have saved himself but chose to die voluntarily at the hands of the people.  

^This seems like a far cry from "God killed Jesus and God thinks killing is ok."

(emphasis is mine)

So, jeebus committed suicide for our sins. But isn't suicide a sin?!? How can a sin resolve other sins? You kathy-licks are a silly bunch.

Jesus had two wills. One human and one divine.

His divine will was united with the will of the Father in the plan for the redemption of mankind. His human will recoiled at the horror of what He was going to suffer.

[Randy Carson]

This is incorrect.

I really don't think a person can read the life of Jesus in its entirety and come out of it having the honest (key word) belief that Jesus condones slavery.

No one could put jesus in context in an era swimming in the worst evils of slavery and honestly say he took a stand against slavery. It would be too bald face of a lie for anything but the most dishonest christian.

You might recall that God had a bit of experience with slavery given the fact that he sent Israel INTO slavery for 400 years in Egypt.

More importantly, the Catechism says this:

548 The signs worked by Jesus attest that the Father has sent him. They invite belief in him.269 To those who turn to him in faith, he grants what they ask.270 So miracles strengthen faith in the One who does his Father's works; they bear witness that he is the Son of God.271 But his miracles can also be occasions for "offense";272 they are not intended to satisfy people's curiosity or desire for magic. Despite his evident miracles some people reject Jesus; he is even accused of acting by the power of demons.273

549 By freeing some individuals from the earthly evils of hunger, injustice, illness and death,274 Jesus performed messianic signs. Nevertheless he did not come to abolish all evils here below,275 but to free men from the gravest slavery, sin, which thwarts them in their vocation as God's sons and causes all forms of human bondage.276

550 The coming of God's kingdom means the defeat of Satan's: "If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."277 Jesus' exorcisms free some individuals from the domination of demons. They anticipate Jesus' great victory over "the ruler of this world".278 The kingdom of God will be definitively established through Christ's cross: "God reigned from the wood."279

Jesus' primary mission was not to cure every ill or injustice but to defeat the power of sin.

Mission accomplished.

[rexbeccarox]

Did God not create the rules, according to you?  And if not to satisfy himself, why did he send himself in Jesus form?

Becca-

The death of Jesus upon the cross does "satisfy" the justice of God which requires reparation for the offenses committed against him, but it also demonstrates the mercy of God which desires that we be re-united with Him in a loving relationship. God's perfect justice and perfect mercy are united at the cross of Jesus.

Paul expressed it this way:

23 for all [of us] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Yeah...

[Ravenshire]

That is what people considered moral in the day. But it never actually was moral.

(emphasis is mine)

This is the crux of the matter. What you consider to be moral. You cannot show any moral that you hold dear to be objective. Not one. You can show that a lot of people share your morality, but you'll never be able to prove one objective. Because they aren't. They're taught. What we believe to be moral is what is moral for our time and society. Even the immorality of murder (not killing, but murder) can be argued. Morality is nothing more than the agreed upon rules your society lives by, taught to us by those who came before us and changed as circumstance require, guided by our empathy for each other.

Remember, stoning adulterers was also considered moral at the time. Yet when it was about to happen right in front of Jesus, He stopped it, and condemned the act.

Objective morality would give no room whatsoever for jeebus to do this. Objective morality is unchanging and unchangeable. It is a dictate from outside.

[Randy Carson]

(emphasis is mine)

He had no problem with slavery though...

Morality is subjective to to time and society you live in. What may have been moral yesterday is not necessarily moral today. What is immoral today may be moral tomorrow.

It is pure crap anyway.  God directly commands the killing of children, multiple times.  If we look at Jesus, he was fine with the Old Testament laws.  The words of Jesus, according to Matthew 5:

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Of course, many Christians pretend that Jesus did not mean what he says there (and by all means, look it up in your favorite translation).  But it is only pretend.

Additionally, Jesus does not say that children do not go to hell.  Those who do not follow Jesus burn in hell forever and ever.  There is o stated exception for children.  That is much worse than merely killing people.

The words of Jesus as recorded in Mark 6:


10 And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into an house, there abide till ye depart from that place.

11 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

Tell me, what cities do not have children?  It is just a lie to say that Jesus has a problem with killing children.

Even if none of that were the case, Jesus did not undo the past and make God not command the murder of children in the Old Testament.  So it is just bullshit.

This is typical Christian bait and switch propaganda, telling you God and Jesus is love and goodness to sucker people in, and then, later on, one finds the real truth of how horrible God and Jesus are, as depicted in the Bible.

Rubbish. The result of selective reading and incomplete understanding...the very thing you accuse Christians of.

Children below the age of reason are not culpable for any personal sins. Therefore, what would they be accused of before God, hmmmm?

[Ravenshire]

No comment on the subjective morality of the early first century?

If he chose to die, that's the very definition of suicide. If I push a child out from in front of a speeding bus and get run over instead, I'm still killing myself even if it is to save another. It's a special type of suicide called a noble sacrifice, but it is still a suicide.

This is the definition parsing that I think is such bullshit. Murder is the unjustified killing of someone. If you kill someone is self defense its not murder. You can twist the words and definitions all you want but it doesn't change the principle. Suicide would be an unjustified self murder. Jesus did not murder himself. He gave himself up to die for a morally justified cause

Since you want to call m e out for twisting a definition:
Suicide
noun
1. the intentional taking of one's own life.
2. destruction of one's own interests or prospects:
   Buying that house was financial suicide.
3.a person who intentionally takes his or her own life.
verb (used without object), suicided, suiciding.
4.to commit suicide.
verb (used with object), suicided, suiciding.
5.to kill (oneself).
Source
I see nothing there about your claim that suicide is "an unjustified self murder."


Taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up.

[Randy Carson]

Becca-

The death of Jesus upon the cross does "satisfy" the justice of God which requires reparation for the offenses committed against him, but it also demonstrates the mercy of God which desires that we be re-united with Him in a loving relationship. God's perfect justice and perfect mercy are united at the cross of Jesus.

Paul expressed it this way:

23 for all [of us] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Yeah...

Ah. We both "stuck" the landing. Thank you, becca. I am honored.

[Ravenshire]

Mission accomplished.

And that means just as much now as it did when Bush said it.

[Randy Carson]

Taking your own life is suicide, no matter how you dress it up.

Jesus did not take his own life. It was taken from him by the Jews who condemned him to death, by the Romans who nailed him to the cross and by you and me whose sins required this of him.

Jesus said:

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

[Catholic_Lady]

That is what people considered moral in the day. But it never actually was moral.

(emphasis is mine)

This is the crux of the matter. What you consider to be moral. You cannot show any moral that you hold dear to be objective. Not one. You can show that a lot of people share your morality, but you'll never be able to prove one objective. Because they aren't. They're taught. What we believe to be moral is what is moral for our time and society. Even the immorality of murder (not killing, but murder) can be argued. Morality is nothing more than the agreed upon rules your society lives by, taught to us by those who came before us and changed as circumstance require, guided by our empathy for each other.

There are places in the Middle East that condone a woman's father to burn her alive if she loses her virginity. Even if she loses it by being raped.

There are also places in the Middle East that allow execution of gay people for being gay. 

They consider these acts moral. They feel no empathy for the "heathens" above and believe they are doing the righteous thing.

Just to clarify what you're saying here, since that society considers these acts moral, is it then, moral?

---

Remember, stoning adulterers was also considered moral at the time. Yet when it was about to happen right in front of Jesus, He stopped it, and condemned the act.

Objective morality would give no room whatsoever for jeebus to do this. Objective morality is unchanging and unchangeable. It is a dictate from outside.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that Jesus should not have stopped the stoning of the adulteress?