What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

You're looking at the paragraph in the bible where Jesus addresses slaves and forming the conclusion that, because He didn't tell them to try to run away or to fight, He must have condoned it. Objectively speaking, don't you think that you can form a much more accurate conclusion about what He meant and where He stands on the issue by looking at the entirety of what He taught, and His character?

No, we look at the entirety of the new testament and see that he never condemned it, never spoke out against it, never said to himself that it was bad, never even gave a slave trader a dirty look. We did hear him say that to love him, we must hate our families. We saw him curse a tree in a petulant fit of rage because he wanted a fig out of season. And yet, we're supposed to take your assertion that "love your neighbor" means he wanted slavery abolished. Mmm-kay.

[Ravenshire]

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

I don't follow, I'm sorry.

It's gawd's opinion, belief, desire, not an objective standard.

[Jenny A]

In case you haven't held one in your own hands, the Catechism is a big book, and we're all learning all the time.

I have actually done that, but only because our youth pastor wanted to let us know that memorizing the Lutheran and much smaller version was not such a very big project. Though actually we not required to memorize it. He had been though. It was one of those walking to school uphill both ways stories.

I can't speak for CL here, but if I am shown something in the Catechism that contradicts something that I think, I recognize that the error lies within my thinking...not that of the Church.

That, right there is what I have against religion in general and Catholic church in big capital particulars. If my thinking contradicts a recognized authority of some kind, or the opinion of someone I respect, I will listen to them and reexamine my thinking. But I would never presume that anyone, anywhere, or any institution anywhere is always right. If there is a god he gave us brains to use them. And if as I think vastly more probable there isn't one of the many things that distinguishes humans is our ability to think critically. Either way, it's a gift everyone should exercise regularly.

[Ravenshire]

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

I'm still waiting for a list, or at least a reason why a list would be impossible to make.  If morals are objective, it should be quite easy.

You'll be waiting a while because there is nothing that is objectively right all the time no matter what (not even love and kindness) nor is there anything that is objective wrong all the time no matter what (not even murder).

[Nope]

Jesus and god are the same being so they did have Jesus.

They had God, yes...they did not know Jesus as the second person of the Trinity.

The Incarnation was a game-changer.

But Jesus and god are the same beings,right? God can't change. The same god that was okay with the rape of war captives is the kinder, more gentle Jesus of the New Testament.

Malachi 3:6

"I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed.

[Nope]

[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='970867' dateline='1434928706']

The idea that one of his instructions to slaves was not "Rise up, because the Good Lord will strengthen your right arm against the slave master", but rather, "be meek and obedient to him like you are to me" speaks volumes about not only his alleged views about slavery -- that it was acceptable because this world is meaningless, only the next one counts -- but also to the mindset he wants in his own believers.  Believers are not to question the master.  They are not to exhibit will of their own.  They are to accept and obey commands given them by the master, on pain of eternal punishment.

Of course such a god would endorse slavery in this world ... it is, after all, exactly what he has planned for you.

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

Different people wrote the bible. There was no god guiding the writings.

[Cyberman]

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

It has been said that there's no such thing as foul language, only foul people; and they can be foul in any language.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

This is incorrect. Christians understand that Jesus meant what he said, and they understand what he meant. You may not.

When Jesus says, "I have not come to destroy but to fulfill," you have the answer. Jesus DID fulfill the law and the prophets. The Greek word translated as "fulfill" actually means "to make complete." The New Covenant of Jesus thus includes and concludes the Old Covenant; it both perfects and transforms it.

And while the sacrificial laws of the OT expired with the sacrifice of Jesus, the moral law (Ten Commandments, etc.) was retained and refined.

Yet your god had the power to obviate all that by perfect forgiveness, and chose not to do so. In the process, he smeared innocent blood on your hands ... blood which you wear with pride.

How can you feel saved at all under those circumstances? I would be horrified to know that I was alive because an innocent person had been sacrificed. Yet you wear it as a badge of pride, that you merited a scapegoat of your own.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If you think Jesus condoned slavery, then what do you make of His commandment to love everyone, even our enemies, to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to treat others how we want to be treated?

Seems to me your boy has some moral relativity happening inside his own heart there. Would you treat others in the manner of chattel? Does loving your neighbor entail forcing them to work from sunup to sundown without compensation outside of food and shelter, lacking the freedom to come and go as they please, even lacking the freedom to refuse your offer? Well, Jesus apparently thought that was a good deal, because as we've seen already, he counseled slaves to "chillax, brotha, love your master and obey him as you would me".

You're looking at the paragraph in the bible where Jesus addresses slaves and forming the conclusion that, because He didn't tell them to try to run away or to fight, He must have condoned it.

Yo're goddamned straight I am saying exactly that. Silence in the face of evil is inexcusable on the part of a moral being. Either Jesus knew slavery was evil, and kept his trap shut, or Jesus thought slavery was A-okay. Which is it?

Objectively speaking, don't you think that you can form a much more accurate conclusion about what He meant and where He stands on the issue by looking at the entirety of what He taught, and His character?

I judge a man by his actions, or inactions. Words are cheap ... anyone can talk.

Also, I just wanted to point something out: there's no way in the world such a vigorous debate as this one would be supported on a religious website.

Kudos to AF.

I don't know what site you are referring to, but the site I was a member of had debates just as heated (if not more so) than this one.

I'm not referring to one website. I've been a member on a few religious websites of varying bents and have invariably been silenced in one form or another once my atheism was made plain. I certainly wasn't permitted to argue 60-page threads of my opinions versus the membership there.

Perhaps you could drop a link to this allegedly permissive site you belonged to, and we can see in a real-world experiment exactly how tolerant they are of non-approved beliefs?

Only difference it people didn't use foul language and resort to personal attacks. But it got just as passionate.

Randy can attest to this.

I look forward to evidence of Christians willing and able to tolerate a continued atheist presence on their forums. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Catholic_Lady]

If gawd created morality, then it is not objective. It is subjective to what it decides is moral. That's not objectivity.

I'm still waiting for a list, or at least a reason why a list would be impossible to make.  If morals are objective, it should be quite easy.

I'm sorry Becca, I don't want you to think I've been ignoring you.

Like I said before, making a list of every single inherently wrong act would take forever and I don't think I'd do it justice because of course there would be things I'd forget. Randy posted earlier about how the Church determines the morality of an act (which is also how I would determine it). It may be easier if you look at that rather than rely on any list I give you.

Nonethelees here are a few things, but would never consider it to be any sort of complete list of all the immoral acts.

Murder
Rape
Theft
Adultery
Slavery
Calumny