My views on objective morality

[abaris]

They can't both be right, and that tells me that morality is subjective, her own included.

And it changes with time, society and necessity.

Drippy actually has a point with his Pop morality thread. It's the title. The contents is pure and undiluted moronism, as usual.

[ignoramus]

I sold my soul to the devil.  I actually did.  I made a pact and everything.  However, I am not a famous, published writer.  Therefore, the devil does not exist.  And neither does god.

Wrong!  God intervened, (again) to save your soul.
The proof is right there! Nothing happened! Because God nullified it, derrrr... How much more proof do you guys need! Jesus H Christ!

[robvalue]

I think I probably sold my soul to the devil too at some point. I can't remember. If he accepted, he got ripped off badly. I doubt he is that stupid.

[Mr.wizard]

Well what if you meet god and discover he is pro slavery? Maybe we where on the right path with slavery and messed it up?

Then He'd be a different god... not the one I currently believe in.

My point is, if you discovered this objective morality, the ultimate truth, and it told you that slavery was moral, would you think slavery was then moral?

[Catholic_Lady]

You are correct. And I never said the OT is "invalid". But the Church does teach that a Catholic is free to either believe in the OT literally, or figuratively. As long as a Catholic adheres to Church doctrines, whether or not they believe that Adam actually talked to a snake, etc, is just details.

That's a pretty generous example.  How about this:

• You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  Leviticus 25:44-46
  

Is this "figurative"?  Are you free to take this passage literally, or not?  Where are your "inherent human rights" now?

It depends. If taking this passage literally means the person actually believes slavery is good, then that contradicts Catholic teaching. Remember, I said a Catholic is free to view the OT stories as literal or figurative speech, so long as those people still adhere to Church teaching.

However, if taking it literally means they do believe God said those things but that it doesn't mean He actually condoned it, then that is permitted, since they are not going against Church teaching. I'm not one of those people, so I cannot speak for them. But here's someone who does: http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/20...avery.html

  

[The Grand Nudger]

"Revelation" gives way to "catholic teaching", ofc. You're not actually free to view the OT as figurative, btw....I don't know who told you that..the catechism is clear on the issue. Literal garden of eden, literal special creation, literal adam, literal eve, literal sin. These things are non-negotiable, as far as the church is concerned. That catholicism has become more liberal in the past few years doesn't change that fact. It just allows you to comfortably ignore what -you- damn well know is stupidity of the highest order.

[Catholic_Lady]

"Revelation" gives way to "catholic teaching", ofc.  You're not actually free to view the OT as figurative, btw....I don't know who told you that..the catechism is clear on the issue.  Literal garden of eden, literal special creation, literal adam, literal eve, literal sin.  These things are non-negotiable, as far as the church is concerned.

It's what we learned in school. I went to Catholic school from kindergarten to 8th grade.

[The Grand Nudger]

Then you were done a disservice. "Catholic teachings" demand literal interpretations of the stories...even if teaching a catholic....doesn't. A specially created literal adam and literal eve had to literally sin..and we must all be descended from them. Did they not teach you this, or were you selectively listening?

[Catholic_Lady]

Then you were done a disservice. The catechism is clear.

If the Catechism says a Catholic is to believe in all the OT stories literally, then why not copy and paste it here?

I searched Catholic Answers for this so I could show it to you guys and put the issue to rest. Peggy Frye talks about it here, using the story of Jonah and the whale as an example: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.ph...+the+whale

The Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, readers being allowed to accept one of several understandings. Take, as an example, Jonah’s escapade at sea, which readers often find disturbing. Ronald Knox said “no defender of the sense of Scripture ever pretended, surely, that this was a natural event. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle; and not to my mind a more startling miracle than the raising of Lazarus, in which I take off the story of Jonah is the element of the grotesque which is present in it.” (Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties (London: Eyre& Spottiswoode, 1951), 109.)

The most common interpretation nowadays, and one that is held by indubitably orthodox exegetes, is that the story of the prophet being swallowed and then disgorged by a “great fish” is merely didactic fiction, a grand tale told to establish a religious point. Catholics are perfectly free to take this or a more literal view… 

[The Grand Nudger]

It's painful to see people issue challenges they -think- will be difficult to meet...which are trivially easy in actuality.
Here's the catechism, on subject.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents

Heres Pope Pius XII, on subject.

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own

Here's the infallible declaration of Vatican I, on subject

confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing

Do you need more, as a catholic, than the infallible declarations of the vatican, the catechism, and a pope's elaboration?  Learn your own goddamned religion and stop treating it like an all you can eat buffet.

And where did I find...all of this...all in one place?  Why, Catholic Answers, ofc...... 
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

...but you want to talk about fish eating people ffs. It wasn't a whale, btw, it was a dragon, leviathan - supernatural creature created by god specifically for this to happen. That would just sound ridiculous though, so we imagine that it was a whale.