What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Metis]

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?
[/quote]

I see whre you are going with this Randy and it is not a viable comparison.

Dr. Brightlight cannot make a claim that cannot be verified via replication. Dr.Brightlight if he wishes to be recognized as a legitimate reliable academic must submit all his findings to peer review of those who have the resources we may lack to test theories and should they be found wanting he and his work will be ejected from the establishment.

There is no peer review in Catholicism; it's "believe me because I tell you to". There's no other theologians to ask, there's no reading the books for oneself. Not a viable comparison.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So James also was conceived immaculately?

Catholics don't believe James was Jesus's brother. They don't claim to know what he was but most say cousin.

It's got a fair bit of a case behind it, the word used for "brother" in the original language and context could just quite as easily mean any male relative. It's only really the Protestants who ignore the original context who say James was Jesus' brother, and even then many don't.

Yeah, I corrected myself pretty quickly after this misstatement of mine.  I come from a Protestant background, and was taught that James was actually his brother by birth.

Funny how such an important person in the life of Jesus could be the subject of dissension.  It's almost as if the story was made up ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Randy, you keep forgetting there are places in this world where your pet religion never traveled until very recently. If it were "the TRAJECTORY of Christianity" then would you care to explain why the Japanese never had the trouble with it that the chister world had?

Simple. Not every group in every age has struggled with the same issues.

However, one cannot help but wonder at the barbaric Japanese treatment of the Chinese and the Allied prisoners of war during WWII.

By the same token, one could wonder at why they don't suffer the high crime rate that America does, despite the fact that Christianity is much less an influence upon Japanese society.

But -- if you'd like to discuss the Japanese treatment of PoWs, there are sociocultural explanations for it which, by the way, emphasize once more the fact that morality is relative.

[Metis]

Catholics don't believe James was Jesus's brother. They don't claim to know what he was but most say cousin.

It's got a fair bit of a case behind it, the word used for "brother" in the original language and context could just quite as easily mean any male relative. It's only really the Protestants who ignore the original context who say James was Jesus' brother, and even then many don't.

Yeah, I corrected myself pretty quickly after this misstatement of mine.  I come from a Protestant background, and was taught that James was actually his brother by birth.

Funny how such an important person in the life of Jesus could be the subject of dissension.  It's almost as if the story was made up ...

Eh, they need to get 1UP's over each other. Each tiny little "victory" can be thrown at the other side. "SEE!! YOU'RE UNBIBLICAL! YOU'VE GOT IT ALL WRONG, WE ARE THE FEW, WE ARE THE REMNANT!".

It seems pedantic to us, but just one error like that can bring a house of cards tumbling down, especially for groups which claim the inability to be mistaken. You'd be surprised at how many belivers have had their whole lives shaped by just one line of scripture; I think Edith Stein for instance (a Philosophy PhD holding Jew and later saint) converted to Catholicism after reading Teresa of Avila's hagiography.

[Jenny A]

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.

Let me put this in different terms to see if it makes more sense. Suppose you were a student at a major university, and you were studying some topic under a truly brilliant professor. In fact, the entire department is internationally recognized as being the best of the best. So, one day, your professor is chatting with you and a group of students about some research he has been doing, and he makes a statement that surprises you because it's counter to what you have been assuming about the topic.

Do you think, "Wow...Dr. Brightlight is the world's leading expert on this. But I can't trust what he says without verifying it for myself...even though I have no lab, no funding, no real expertise..."?

Or do you adjust your own thinking?

That's where you didn't read and perhaps didn't put into your original post, the fine print:

" 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 the professor really is right, and he often is, then I'm going to change my mind. I will probably assume his data is accurate, but the reasoning I look at on my own.  The interesting thing is though, if he didn't change my mind, I've never had a brilliant professor not respect a rational rebuttal.  Twice, just twice, I've changed a professor's mind.

[Ravenshire]

And that is semantics. If the morality of an action is in any way dependent on the situation, that's subjective morality. Play all the word games you want, it doesn't change a thing.

You do not understand. Let me use the more obvious example that I used earlier to explain this to someone else.

An insane person goes into psychotics and kills 10 people at the mall.

The next day, a perfectly sane person, after much premeditation, goes into  different mall and kills 10 people.

In both cases, the objective act of killing 10 people is immoral.  

But the first person's culpability is less than the second person. This doesn't mean the act is any less immoral, it just means the person's culpability is lessened.

Yes, I do understand. Your church plays word games to avoid admitting their morality is just as subjective as everyone else and you buy into it. Please don't insult my intelligence.

[Whateverist]

"What IS good, and how do we determine it?"

Generally speaking, they'll let you try a spoonful of as many flavors as you like. Then just buy the ice cream you like best.

[Ravenshire]

And what you're saying here is that the morality of the act is dependent upon the mindset of the actor because -- in a point you elide -- there is no such thing as a moral act without an actor, or moral judge.

That, in and of itself, renders morality subjective. You're making my case for me, every time you bring up these instances where you say an objective moral claim is modifiable by certain extenuating circumstances.  The is right, just, and normal.  Why would you deny doing it?

I am not asking you to agree with me. Just to understand what I am saying. Do you still not understand, or are you just saying you don't agree? What you just said above seems to indicate that you do not understand.

Let me try to explain it in the form of a question:

So, back to the American justice metaphor.

Murder is a crime. It is not lawful. It is not legal. It is a crime, period. This is American law.

If the insane person who murdered 10 shoppers at the mall got an innocent for reason of insanity verdict, does that mean that murder ceases to be a crime? Does the fact that some murderers get the innocent for reason of insanity verdict mean that murder stops being a crime?

Since when are crime and morality equal? Just because something is a crime does not mean it's immoral. Just because something is immoral does not mean it's a crime.

Using criminal law to explain morality is a fools game.

[Randy Carson]

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.

Can you show me the verses which say that Israelite men could rape their women captives? There are nine which contain the word "rape"...which do you have in mind?

[Metis]

"What IS good, and how do we determine it?"

Generally speaking, they'll let you try a spoonful of as many flavors as you like.  Then just buy the ice cream you like best.

Y-You mean...You actually employ your own free will and can make decisions WITHOUT THE AID OF A FUNNY HAT?!



So much heresy I can't even