My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok that's fair, and I agree. 

Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does. The reason we do so is because we think the Church is above the bible. Church first, bible second. Poca did a good job of explaining for me that Catholicism isn't about following the bible as closely as possible. We believe the Church was founded by Jesus Himself and has ties to the divine. We believe that takes precedence.

Being that the church isn't one individual's opinion, and even the popes get replaced when they die, then how can you call that source of morality "objective"? You know papal opinions change your doctrines, therefore how can you possibly regard any papal opinion as an objective and perfect source of morality? You surely can't call that "eternal"!

Actually, papal opinions don't change doctrines. Papal infallibility only applies when a pope makes an official infallible pronouncement. This is a huge deal and has only happened like 2 times in Church history. It's not like every opinion the pope has about something becomes doctrinal teaching.

[Catholic_Lady]

I personally don't know any evangelicals, but I don't think they take the bible completely literally either, do they?

Don't you watch your own politicians? Ted Cruz, only to give one example? Read up on what he says on the bible. Don't you follow what guys like Drippy or GC say here, on these very boards? Huggy?

Many of them take the bible very literal.

So do they think what the OT says about eating certain foods and wearing certain clothes, for example, are binding?

[abaris]

So do they think what the OT says about eating certain foods and wearing certain clothes, for example, are binding?

That's the hypocrisy, isn't it? They always wear cloths of different fabrics, shave their beards, cut their hair and if asked, if they eat lobster, I'm pretty sure, the answer would be yes. It's only another part in the same section, they take seriously, the one attributed to gays.

Doesn't matter though, they feel themselves to be bible literalists. They always keep claiming it to be the literal and unchangeable word of god, to be followed to the letter. And that's what's making them dangerous.

[The Grand Nudger]

They, like you, have many excuses for ignoring what they claim to adhere to.  That doesn't change their claim.

[LadyForCamus]

No, the church is already doing the cherry picking for you. As I pointed out earlier, I didn't have the liberty to discount the OT as being alllegorical, as far as the priests were concerned. I'm speaking of the early 70ies. A time that's not so long ago.

Ok that's fair, and I agree. 

Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does. The reason we do so is because we think the Church is above the bible. Church first, bible second. Poca did a good job of explaining for me that Catholicism isn't about following the bible as closely as possible. We believe the Church was founded by Jesus Himself and has ties to the divine. We believe that takes precedence.

But if the bible is sub-standard, and by necessity subject to cherry picking for it to be relevant or useful in today's society, what possible reason would anyone have for accepting it is as the word of God? I mean, this is HIS book. It shouldn't need an editor.

[abaris]

They, like you, have many excuses for ignoring what they claim to adhere to.  That doesn't change their claim.

They want to discriminate against others. But they themselves don't want to be discriminated. That's why they don't read past the passage condemning gays.

[The Grand Nudger]

They don't even read that passage.  Believers are notoriously and demonstrably ignorant with regards to scriptures....even relative to atheists, which ought to be a canary in the mines moment...but it isn't, at least not for them. A man who sat upfront -told them- that god hates the gay. Too often to stomach...the men who delivered this oh-so-important life lesson wore a dress and diddled little boys when they weren't busy defrauding their customers.

[Mystic]

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Being that the church isn't one individual's opinion, and even the popes get replaced when they die, then how can you call that source of morality "objective"? You know papal opinions change your doctrines, therefore how can you possibly regard any papal opinion as an objective and perfect source of morality? You surely can't call that "eternal"!

Actually, papal opinions don't change doctrines. Papal infallibility only applies when a pope makes an official infallible pronouncement. This is a huge deal and has only happened like 2 times in Church history. It's not like every opinion the pope has about something becomes doctrinal teaching.

So Pope Leo bullied Galileo with threats of torture over an opinion, when his reports which falsified geocentrism did not even violate his church doctrine? Somehow that papal power looks more than it should be IMHO.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok that's fair, and I agree. 

Catholicism DOES cherry pick from the bible. I'm glad it does. The reason we do so is because we think the Church is above the bible. Church first, bible second. Poca did a good job of explaining for me that Catholicism isn't about following the bible as closely as possible. We believe the Church was founded by Jesus Himself and has ties to the divine. We believe that takes precedence.

But if the bible is sub-standard, and by necessity subject to cherry picking for it to relevant or useful in today's society, what possible reason would anyone have for accepting it is as the word of God?  I mean, this is HIS book.  It shouldn't need an editor.  

We believe HIS Church comes before HIS book.