What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

I have addressed this several times. But I can see how you may have missed it.

Yes, He was the same God. But we have to remember that the bible was not written by the hand of God. It was written by man. And though these men were all inspired by God, they are still men and not God. I good way to think of it is that the bible represents God, but does so through the filter of man.

Once Jesus (who is God) came we were able to gain a better understanding of God. And He debunked a number of things from the OT, namely the stoning of adulterers and the law "an eye for an eye" which He addressed specifically.

Hope that helps.

And divorce.

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I said, though He didn't specifically address slavery, He told us "love your enemy," and "love your neighbor as yourself." and "treat others how you want them to treat you."

He probably didn't specifically address rape either, as well as other specific things. But like slavery, I think that's a given... considering his commandment to love.

I don't think any honest person could read the entire life of Jesus and come out of it with the take way that He condones enslaving people.

That seems a very odd thing for a Catholic to say Catholic_Lady, whenever I have visited Catholic Forums they usually deny that slavery itself is immoral (if you go to more conservative ones or even SSPX they usually go further and say feudalism/serfdom/absolute monarchy are the only Godly Catholic forms of governance.

I don't see how the Catholic Church can say slavery is immoral, when the Synod of Gangra said anyone who called for the abolition of it was Anathema, several popes have owned slaves (Alexander VI actually granted permission to the Spanish to enslave the inhabitants of South America!) and in more recent times the Pope actually sided with the US confederacy, stating that anyone who thought slavery was immoral was against God. (If you look into the campaign against slavery you'll actually find it was led by protestants and one of it's greatest enemies was no other than the Catholic Church. Look at St Martin de Pores, who was basically made a saint for being a submissive slave and respectful to whitey!)

By all means I agree slavery is immoral, but for most of it's history (until the 1970's to be more precise) Catholicism has held that slavery is instituted by God and that some people are just better than others.

I am not part of the SSPX, and so I cannot speak on their behalf.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, that's not what the word debunk means, and the church does -not- feel that the NT, or "jesus", "debunked" the OT.  It is as literal as they demand for you to confess it to be.  That's even their choice of language, btw, you must -confess- the literal nature of those OT stories which the church decides - as a catholic.

It's an article of faith, non-negotiable.

[Randy Carson]

rexbeccarox has. Twice.

And let's not kid one another: CL's avatar has got more than a few of the guys here dialing the aggression in their responses to her way, way down.

Yes, I have... because she broke two different rules, which she has acknowledged that she understands, and which she hasn't done again.  Unlike you, who continues to flout the rules after being told countless times.  No one else has as much trouble with the them as you do.  It's amazing.  We aren't here to follow your rules, Randy.

Also, I can't speak for other people, but I've been much more civil to C_L in general because she hasn't abused the forum the way you do.  I'm bisexual, but I'm not really attracted to her (C_L, you're beautiful; just not my type), and her avatar does nothing for me.  I treat her better than you because she treats the forum better than you do; also, she doesn't deliberately flout the rules to see what she can get away with, thus making staff's job harder.

Get over yourself.

And I think it is fair to say that I have followed the rules since our first "interaction", becca.

Pocaracas gave me a warning, but he explained how to avoid it in the future, and I have been following his advice ever since.

CL IS a "kinder, gentler" apologist than I am, so I can see how people like her approach better.

But make no mistake, we're singing from the same hymnal.

[The Grand Nudger]

Kinder and gentler...lol?  Hardly. Speaking off...you're so quick to pop in and correct an atheist on matters of catholic doctrine -aggressively-..........and here you have a person who already believes, the hard work is over, a person for whom your wisdom could really make a difference.....and yet.....

Solidarity though, I get it, wouldn't want to be seen bickering in front of the heathens.

[Mr.wizard]

He is god right? The same guy from the old testament? The same old testament that not only endorses slavery but gives specific instruction on it?

I have addressed this several times. But I can see how you may have missed it.

Yes, He was the same God. But we have to remember that the bible was not written by the hand of God. It was written by man. And though these men were all inspired by God, they are still men and not God. I good way to think of it is that the bible represents God, but does so through the filter of man. It is not completely perfect. It is not infallible. It was not directly written by God.

Once Jesus (who is God) came we were able to gain a better understanding of God. And He debunked a number of things from the OT, namely the stoning of adulterers and the law "an eye for an eye" which He addressed specifically.

Hope that helps.

This is a cop-out, the writers of the new testament were also men why should we trust anything they wrote about jesus.

[Randy Carson]

Fair enough, Jenny.

But this does not undermine my premise that God was training a people over the course of a long period of time.

If you want a curved piece of furniture, you have to work with the wood very slowly. Are people much different? See the Father's handiwork?

I'm confused, what does training people over a very long period of years have to do with the verses Jenny used? So, a Hebrew virgin that might be very young, is sold to a man by the person she probably trusted most, her dad. Her dad knows she will be raped and used for sex and yet he sells her anyway. Remember, bronze aged people were humans just like we are. The girl would have felt the betrayal and pain that any person would feel in such a situation. Her life meant nothing apparently to this god because he was using her suffering was being used to train some future group. Is that what you are saying, Randy?

I'm saying that God worked with the Hebrews based on what they could handle at the time...not based on what you think of it several thousand years later.

Things that WERE permitted at various times in the past are no longer permitted. God was more lenient with the Israelites early on than he was later.

[Catholic_Lady]

All those things are part of our Christian beliefs.

With that being said, these questions are basically the same as another question that has been asked here already in several different ways, "why do you believe what you believe?"

There is no simple answer, but Randy did a great job of addressing it in a way that I myself could never be eloquent enough to put into words. It's in this post, and others. If I get the chance I will look for one of them and repost it here for you.

---

Close, but no. :-)

Morality does not depend on society in the first place. That is why I believe morality is unchanging, and that is why I believe certain things are wrong even if our society, or others, consider them good.

I believe morality comes from God.

Right they are part of your Christian belief, you believe your morals come from god. My question was how do you know the morals your getting from god are good, it is impossible to judge the morality of god when you have no morality of your own.

It is part of the Christian belief to believe that God is goodness and love. So, I'd have to explain why I am Christian in the first place.

This is just my theory, but I think we all have it inside of us to instinctively know that things like love, generosity, honesty, chastity, temperance, etc... are objectively good things, and the acts that represent those things, are good acts. It doesn't mean we hold all the answers to morality, nor does it mean we can't be brainwashed into thinking killing infidels (for example) is good, but I do believe we do have a little piece of "God" inside us to help guide, as part of a human instinct.

[abaris]

Okay. I don't agree with everything William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas think, either. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't learn something from them...OR from Ehrman, et al.

But maybe you see the problem here. You've been repeatedly asked what you think instead of quoting the catechism over and over. But your only answer, as well as CL's, was to be perfectly in line with the catechism. First, I don't believe that for one second, since you are human and not part of a hive mind. And secondly it leads to the all too common mistake of lumping all atheists together. Yes, we might agree on some matters and yes, there are some, who take the words of prominent atheists as some kind of gospel. But otherwise the only defining feature is disbelief. So if you want to know what we're thinking, you'd have to do that on an individual level.

[The Grand Nudger]

How wonderful, movable standards of justice from the author of divine objective morality.  I get to burn because I wasn't born an ancient, cock mutilating jew.

Some god, some morality, some method.