What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Catholic_Lady]

Lol, trust me I know exactly how you feel.

Lol??  This is a laughing matter to you?  We're talking about rape and murder and horrible things in general, and you see fit to lol?

Just to clarify, I do not think rape and murder are funny. I was just trying to make light of the fact that you and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum and yet are feeling the same frustration right now.

Truth is Becca, you and I just disagree on the anatomy of the whole thing. You see objective acts and personal culpability as being one, indistinguishable thing. I see them as being 2 separate things. Which makes sense, because I believe in God, and you don't.

"Objective acts"?  What does that even mean?

By that I mean the isolated act itself, separated from who did it or under what circumstances.

At the end of the day, we were both able to come to the same conclusion about the woman in your story... which is really all that matters as far as we're concerned. The conclusion being that she should be found innocent of the crime of murder, and that her culpability is eliminated.

The "woman in [my] story" was my piano teacher for years; I spent a lot of time with her little boy, and I knew her husband fairly well.  My parents played Bridge with them, and when she left the hospital after two years (she wasn't found "innocent", rather "guilty but mentally ill"), she went to amusement parks and lunches and parties with us. How do you feel about your glib responses?  Are they objectively moral?
[/quote][/quote]

Well I am glad we are able to agree that her culpability is eliminated. She sounds like a good person.

As for my responses, I am sorry for the "lol". I see that it was insensitive of me and I did not mean to offend you. I have shared my views to the best of my abilities. I am sorry if I was not gentle enough in addressing them.

[Nope]

Hmmm... can you explain how? If this man was put in jail for the rest of his life at that point instead of killed, he would still not be able to offend again. Unless you mean the child would be able to recover better if the man was dead verses behind bars? Is this what you mean?

---

[

Self defense is not murder. ;-)
[/quote]


I apologize CL because I did not see this question but I wasn't ignoring you.

How do you know the father would have been in jail for the rest of his life? There is no guarantee that her husband would be found guilty even if child molestation carried a life sentence.

She saw that her child was in danger so at that moment, she defended him. I have no idea if the child would have been better or not if the man was in jail.

[downbeatplumb]

Not if you are a surgeon.

You found the punchline.

Sorry I spoiled your trap.

[Longhorn]

You found the punchline.

Sorry I spoiled your trap.

REPENT!!

[Cyberman]

It wasn't really much of a trap. More of a feeler. I wasn't disappointed.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'd like an answer for this, please.

I just thought of something:  what do you call someone who impregnates a woman without her consent?

Oh sorry.

Hadn't seen it.

Well, is the sex itself consensual? If not, then it is rape.

If the sex is consensual, and the decision to not use contraception is consensual, then I don't know what you mean about impregnating "without consent?" Can you clarify?

---

I am sorry, Neim, I did not mean to ignore you. The question of "how do I know I'm right" would basically be the same question as "why do I believe in Christianity," Which is all that is comes down to. This has been covered already in this thread. It is long and difficult to put into words. But Randy did a good job of it. His posts about it represent my sentiments as well.  

It's very easy to put into words. You don't know. You believe.

Those aren't the same questions.

I don't feel like digging through 150 pages to find 'because bible'.

You are correct. I believe 100% though. But yes, believe nonetheless.

[rexbeccarox]

I'd like an answer for this, please.

Oh sorry.

Hadn't seen it.

Well, is the sex itself consensual? If not, then it is rape.

If the sex is consensual, and the decision to not use contraception is consensual, then I don't know what you mean about impregnating "without consent?" Can you clarify?

Oh, come on! Yes, I think your morals leave a little bit to be desired, but you're not thick. I think you know where I'm going with this.

[Longhorn]

Well! Congratulations, CL. You're the first theist I've heard admit that.

[Catholic_Lady]

The isolated act of pushing a knife into someone? No. :-)

Because as someone pointed out, it could be a medical procedure to save/improve the life of another person.

Thanks for addressing the question, even if the punchline was a bit premature. The fact that you felt the need to add a qualifier tells me that, as with the murder thing, you do recognise that there are actions which are context-driven - hence, relative.

You are correct. There are actions that are context driven. The knife thing is one of them. That is definitely relative.

Murder and rape on the other hand, I do not believe are context driven. I believe that as acts in and of themselves, are inherently immoral.

---

Hmmm... can you explain how? If this man was put in jail for the rest of his life at that point instead of killed, he would still not be able to offend again. Unless you mean the child would be able to recover better if the man was dead verses behind bars? Is this what you mean?

---

[

Self defense is not murder. ;-)

I apologize CL because I did not see this question but I wasn't ignoring you.

1. How do you know the father would have been in jail for the rest of his life? There is no guarantee that her husband would be found guilty even if child molestation carried a life sentence.

2. She saw that her child was in danger so at that moment, she defended him. I have no idea if the child would have been better or not if the man was in jail.

Oh no problem. I miss questions all the time! There are 2 different things at play here.

1. Objectively speaking, I still don't think it's moral to murder someone on the grounds that they may not get convicted. I do not believe that this is a justifiable act. Either legally or morally.

2. I understand that. Which is part of the reason why I don't think she carries any culpability. She blacked out and was acting on pure motherly instinct. This does not make her a bad person.
Separate from that though, (as far as I understood the story that was told to me) the fact still remains that this was not a life threatening situation and that it was not a case of killing someone in order to save a life. If this was the case, Becca can correct me, and of course, it changes things.

---

Oh sorry.

Hadn't seen it.

Well, is the sex itself consensual? If not, then it is rape.

If the sex is consensual, and the decision to not use contraception is consensual, then I don't know what you mean about impregnating "without consent?" Can you clarify?

Oh, come on!  Yes, I think your morals leave a little bit to be desired, but you're not thick.  I think you know where I'm going with this.

I'll admit, after I responded, it did cross my mind that perhaps you were referring to the Virgin Mary. But it was consensual. As the story goes the angel appeared to her and asked her if she accepted this. So I was confused...

---

Well! Congratulations, CL. You're the first theist I've heard admit that.

Yes. :-)

I have admitted before that there is no proof and that we cannot prove to another person that God exists. There are (in my opinion) good reasons to believe that God exists, but at the end of the day, no proof. We are still taking a leap of faith.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you say you have "good reason" and then can't actually describe that without invalid argumentation....it's not reason at all, let alone good reason....Cath. You have -thoughts- which lead you to believe...lets not stretch and call that anything other than what it is, hmn?