Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (147) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: Cashemco Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196748  
Subject: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 12:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
On September 7, 2012 we lost Cardinal Carlos Martini. Hopefully the Roman Catholic Church listens to his wise words and goes forward instead of backwards in time. Go to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/cardinal-carlo-mari... for information about him and photos of his funeral in Italy. There are many other sites that discussed his thoughts. He also wrote a number of books.
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182824 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 1:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I think "Josh" has already spoken ill of the dead and said he had a mental disorder. Sad that a disgreement on view points leads it to say things like that.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoshRandall Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182826 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 1:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You will be proved 100% wrong. The truth is not subject to societal changes and popular opinions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182831 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
JoshRandall: "You will be proved 100% wrong. The truth is not subject to societal changes and popular opinions."

So do you still believe, as the RCC did for centuries, that the sun revolves around the earth?

Or has the truth of the RCC changed, given that it now acknoledges that the earth revolves around the sun?

JAFO
(not expecting a response)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182836 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
JAFO
(not expecting a response)



You won't. The transgendered one doesn't like anyone to questions its word.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182839 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/24/2012 5:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The truth is not subject to societal changes and popular opinions.

But it's evidently subject to significant interpretation.

I agree that the truth isn't subject to change. Facts are what they are, regardless of when they're being view or by whom.

Morality, however, isn't a fact. It's a subjective opinion. Even when it comes to you via the bible. Even if it's precisely the same bible with the same verbiage as the one read by your ancestor 200 years ago. Even if it's the same one as read by your neighbor today. All three of you will come up with different moral interpretations from the same words.

Facts are facts... until they are filtered through the human consciousness. Then they become highly modified and personalized judgements.

Which is why some christians won't ever being viewing your words through the computer for fear of this demonic use of electricity. And why some christian women who are beaten by their husbands have no recourse. And why some christians still keep the sabbath on Saturday. And why some christians abstain from alcohol. Etc.

Yes, the truth is always the truth. Until one human attempts to convey the truth to another human. Then you get two truths.


Fryaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182850 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/25/2012 9:04 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Frydaze1,

Morality, however, isn't a fact. It's a subjective opinion.

This misconception, unfortunately, is the biggest educational error facing modern society. If you study classical philosophy, you will discover Natural Law (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ for overview) -- an absolute moral standard that does not depend upon the teaching of any religion.

Norm.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182854 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/25/2012 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
This misconception, unfortunately, is the biggest educational error facing modern society. If you study classical philosophy, you will discover Natural Law (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ for overview) -- an absolute moral standard that does not depend upon the teaching of any religion.

You keep saying that, as if I'm suddenly going to agree with you.

First of all, I didn't mention religion. I mentioned humans. Even without religion, morality is subjective because humans are subjective.

Second, I don't agree with you that Natural Law is universal. Or even that it is correct.

The fact that we disagree is, in fact, proof that morality isn't universal. And also proof that it is subjective.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182880 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/25/2012 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"The church is 200 years out of date. Why don't we rouse ourselves? Are we afraid?"<i/>

Are they are afraid? Should they should be?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 182886 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/25/2012 2:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you study classical philosophy, you will discover Natural Law (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ for overview) -- an absolute moral standard that does not depend upon the teaching of any religion.



Right....it also goes under the name of Hooey!

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183049 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 9/30/2012 11:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Frydaze1,

You keep saying that, as if I'm suddenly going to agree with you.

In case you have not figured it out, it does not matter whether you agree with me or not. Natural Law is a universal moral standard deduced from the order of the universe that does not depend upon either your opinion or mine.

Even without religion, morality is subjective because humans are subjective.

That's like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is subjective because humans are subjective or like saying that the Law of Gravity is subjective because humans are subjective. Such a statement is obviously fallacious.

Second, I don't agree with you that Natural Law is universal. Or even that it is correct.

The fact that we disagree is, in fact, proof that morality isn't universal. And also proof that it is subjective.


Or it may be proof that somebody is dwelling in utter ignorance of absolute truth.

Back up a step. Suppose that some schmuck who had not studied mathematics were to claim that the Pythagorean Theorem is not true. Would you say that the fact that he disagrees is, in fact, proof that the Pythagorean Theorem is not universal and that it is subjective?

Norm.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183055 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<
Or it may be proof that somebody is dwelling in utter ignorance of absolute truth.
>>

Excellent point,,, have you considered that the somebody you are referring to is you?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183056 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 10:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
Natural Law is a universal moral standard deduced from the order of the universe




Saying that over and over does not make it true.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaRunner Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183059 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Natural Law is a universal moral standard deduced from the order of the universe




Saying that over and over does not make it true.

========================================================================

But it makes people like him feel better for their actions against others.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183061 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 12:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Natural Law is a universal moral standard deduced from the order of the universe that does not depend upon either your opinion or mine.

As you are told every time you say this, repeating this falsehood does not suddenly make it true. It's false. (Not that YOU are lying...I'm willing to grant that you are simply in error.)

That's like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is subjective because humans are subjective or like saying that the Law of Gravity is subjective because humans are subjective. Such a statement is obviously fallacious.

No, it's nothing like the Pythagorean Theorem. So, yes, your statement is obviously fallacious.

Or it may be proof that somebody is dwelling in utter ignorance of absolute truth.

You're getting closer if you realize that person is YOU. Starting with the notion that there is "absolute truth". Go to any philosophy department in any state university and see how far you get with that idea.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183062 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 12:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
In case you have not figured it out, it does not matter whether you agree with me or not. Natural Law is a universal moral standard deduced from the order of the universe that does not depend upon either your opinion or mine.
...
That's like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is subjective because humans are subjective or like saying that the Law of Gravity is subjective because humans are subjective. Such a statement is obviously fallacious.
...
Back up a step. Suppose that some schmuck who had not studied mathematics were to claim that the Pythagorean Theorem is not true. Would you say that the fact that he disagrees is, in fact, proof that the Pythagorean Theorem is not universal and that it is subjective?



But it DOES matter. Gravity and Pythagorean Theorem apply to me whether I believe in them or not. Morality, in order to be universal, has to be MY morality also. And it isn't. Therefore it isn't universal.

Is Christianity universal? No. Proof? I'm not Christian. Putting the word "Law" on the end of the concept does not actually make it a law. In fact, even being a law doesn't make something universal (traffic laws, for example).

And since you seem to be the only one on this board who feels that Natural Law actually contains the correct version of morality, that's proof that it isn't universal.

But let's just run with your Natural Law thing for a moment. In nature, there is homosexuality. Many animals do it. Clearly, therefore, homosexuality is moral. I can't argue with that logic... but you will. Which means that even YOU don't believe in Natural Law. If *no one* on this board believes in it, I'd say there's no way to call it universal.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183067 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 1:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Gravity and Pythagorean Theorem apply to me whether I believe in them or not. Morality, in order to be universal, has to be MY morality also. And it isn't. Therefore it isn't universal.

Jumping in the middle here ... you are not being consistent. You say gravity is universal because it applies to you whether or not you believe it does. Good so far.

Then you equivocate and say that there is no universal morality because you don't believe it exists.

But if there is such a things as universal morality that applies to everyone (in the sense that everyone is accountable to it), it doesn't matter if you believe it or hold the same tenets as it has. What matters is if it *applies* to you.

What am I missing?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183071 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Jumping in the middle here ... you are not being consistent. You say gravity is universal because it applies to you whether or not you believe it does. Good so far.

Then you equivocate and say that there is no universal morality because you don't believe it exists.

But if there is such a things as universal morality that applies to everyone (in the sense that everyone is accountable to it), it doesn't matter if you believe it or hold the same tenets as it has. What matters is if it *applies* to you.

What am I missing?



You are missing the definition of morality:
A set of beliefs about what is right and wrong.

A set of beliefs cannot be universal unless everyone believes it.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183072 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 1:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

A set of beliefs cannot be universal unless everyone believes it.




That's true.
But someTHING can be universal whether anyone believes it or not.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183074 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Or let's try it a different way:

Name one universal moral. It has to be something that is always true under all circumstances. (I can think of a few that *I* think qualify. But there will be people who disagree even with those.)

The problem is that it doesn't matter how universally true you think it is. There will be others who are equally convinced that you're wrong. And you don't have any authority to say yours is the right way and theirs is the wrong way. None. "Because my god says your god is wrong" is pointless. They'll say the same thing, but in reverse.

Natural law? That certainly won't hold up here. I believe rape is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your newborn is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your mate after voluntary sex is wrong. I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong. I can probably go on all day with a list of things I think are wrong... but which we see examples of in the animal kingdom. So if that's "universal morality" we're screwed.

Actually, I might take it back. There are no universal morals among animals. You will always find exceptions to any behavior. Therefore, since there is no morality in nature, I agree that this is, in fact, universal morality. IOW: Natural Law is an accurate guide to morality because it proves that there is no such thing except as an artificial human construct.

Universal morality is lack of morality. Thank you, Natural Law, for helping me prove this.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183075 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 1:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Starting with the notion that there is "absolute truth"
>>

I do think there is absolute truth. 'God is Truth'. :-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183076 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That's true.
But someTHING can be universal whether anyone believes it or not.


Yes. But morals aren't truths. They're behavior guidelines. It's true that some roses are red. Any feeling about the good or bad of those roses being red is a judgement, not a truth.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183078 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What am I missing?
------------

You are missing the definition of morality:
A set of beliefs about what is right and wrong.

A set of beliefs cannot be universal unless everyone believes it.


I was indeed missing YOUR definition of morality ;-)
Thanks for the clarification.

You are using a "descriptive" definition, while I'm using a "normative" definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NorDe...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183079 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Name one universal moral. It has to be something that is always true under all circumstances. (I can think of a few that *I* think qualify. But there will be people who disagree even with those.)

Under your definition ("what people believe is right") there are no universal moral obligations.

If God exists, then there are universal moral obligations, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

If there is no God, then your position is certainly correct.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183080 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I was indeed missing YOUR definition of morality ;-)

So you're saying that even my definition isn't universal?
:-p


I used dictionary.com but I'm willing to go with your link.
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The problem there is that you're going to run into a situation where you define the other as irrational *because* they disagree with your position on a specific moral. Rape is a great example of that. I think that any rational person would say that rape is immoral. And then we're going to find many examples of rape throughout history, committed by people who we consider irrational *because* they break what we consider the "correct" moral code.

You can see the circular nature of this, right?
How do we know our code is correct? Because any rational person would agree with it.
What about this guy who didn't agree with it? He's irrational.
How do you know he's irrational? Because he broke the code.

You can't get anywhere with that.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183081 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
If God exists, then there are universal moral obligations, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

If God is not obligated to follow them, they are not universal. All sentient beings would have to be obligated to follow them in order for them to be universal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183082 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Under your definition ("what people believe is right") there are no universal moral obligations.

If God exists, then there are universal moral obligations, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

If there is no God, then your position is certainly correct.




Okay, we can run with that.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183083 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 2:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If God exists, then there are universal moral obligations, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.
---------
If God is not obligated to follow them, they are not universal. All sentient beings would have to be obligated to follow them in order for them to be universal.


Would you say that having human DNA is universal to humans, but not to all possbile sentient beings?

Then there are universals that only apply to humans. In this category are God's commands.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183084 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Would you say that having human DNA is universal to humans, but not to all possbile sentient beings?

Yes.



Then there are universals that only apply to humans. In this category are God's commands.

To re-phrase your statement, then:

If God exists, then there are moral obligations universal to all humans, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

Which could definitely be true for some understandings of 'moral obligations.' (I still wouldn't agree that a God's expectations for how I should behave would be moral by my understanding of moral - a topic we've hashed out before.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183085 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If God exists, then there are moral obligations universal to all humans, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

More precise. Thanks

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183086 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 3:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
bdhinton: "You are using a "descriptive" definition, while I'm using a "normative" definition: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/#NorDe...... "

"[M]orality prohibits actions such as killing, causing pain, deceiving, and breaking promises." from your source

Not really; self-defense, defense of others, war, the death penalty are all exceptions to the supposed absolute morality of no killing.

"“Morality” in the normative sense is sometimes taken to prohibit unnatural sexual activity. However, such a prohibition need not be included in an account of morality as a universal guide that all fallible and vulnerable rational persons would put forward for governing the behavior of all moral agents because it is not irrational to favor unnatural sexual activity." from yoru source

Your source also disagrees with Norm.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183087 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Or let's try it a different way:

Name one universal moral. It has to be something that is always true under all circumstances. (I can think of a few that *I* think qualify. But there will be people who disagree even with those.)

The problem is that it doesn't matter how universally true you think it is. There will be others who are equally convinced that you're wrong. And you don't have any authority to say yours is the right way and theirs is the wrong way. None. "Because my god says your god is wrong" is pointless. They'll say the same thing, but in reverse.



Doesn't matter what others think.
Doesn't matter what I think.
SandyLeeLee can explain this - I can't.
But there is a universal morality that has nothing to do with religion.
I believe she gave the example of torture as a universal moral wrong.

I'm not philosophically equipped to argue the point, but she is.
And she will clean your clock on the subject. I guarantee it. :)

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183089 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 4:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Doesn't matter what others think.
Doesn't matter what I think.
SandyLeeLee can explain this - I can't.
But there is a universal morality that has nothing to do with religion.
I believe she gave the example of torture as a universal moral wrong.


As long as she's capable of giving a reason why her view of it is universal, I'm happy to listen.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183090 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 4:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
As long as she's capable of giving a reason why her view of it is universal, I'm happy to listen.


Frydaze1

---------------

She used to post at Atheists all the time.
Not so much these days.
But I located a couple of threads you might be interested in reading - IIRC they were pretty fascinating.

There are two threads I found on a search (there may be others):

"Torture?"

"Origins of Morality"

Both these threads were in 2002 over on the Atheists board.

Hope this helps.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183092 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You're getting closer if you realize that person is YOU. Starting with the notion that there is "absolute truth". Go to any philosophy department in any state university and see how far you get with that idea.



oi... that's the trick isn't it... send him to a state unit.

send him to a random religious university and you -might- get a different result *


the move from "Is to Ought" has puzzled many a philosopher .. the one i took a course from said the ONLY answer is to have some Ought-axioms,
AND that since no one could agree on any, he used a place-holder.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183093 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 5:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
If God exists, then there are moral obligations universal to all humans, in that HE obligates all humans to follow them.

Except I think then the only universal moral obligation is to "do what you're told". The Bible makes that clear because in one passage people are told that killing is bad/sinful, and in another they are commanded to kill every man, woman, child, and farm animal. So clearly killing is not universally bad, even allowing for self-defense (which I don't believe Jesus really did). Sometimes it is "good" because you were told (by Yahweh/Jehovah) to do it.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183094 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 5:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
She used to post at Atheists all the time.

I'm familiar with, and have great respect for, her writings.


"Origins of Morality"

Interesting. What she described there is Libertarianism in its purest form. With ovrer 300 posts, I don't expect I'll get through it all today. But I'm sure someone else mentioned that already. I'm interested to see where that goes.

The problem with what she stated is that it doesn't actually work that way. They're awesome ideals. I'd even happily agree to them as morality as its finest. But I believe it fails some of the test of "universal morality" because I can already find a gaping hole in it: children.

Allowing a two year old to behave with complete autonomy would be morally indefensible. Se we already have to write in some exceptions.

Additionally, this phrase:
b) No individual can be compelled into a transaction that goes against their interests

Who gets to define what their interests are? Now we're back into judgements.

Don't get me wrong. I like it. I'm still a libertarian at heart. And it definitely comes closest to my version of morality. But I don't know that I could honestly say it's universal.

But I'll keep reading the thread. I'm sure I haven't said anything here that someone else didn't already bring up. I look forward to reading the discussion.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183097 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My mistake. I'm reading one initiated by 6. Still, it's really good stuff. (I wonder why I thought it was SLL? I swear I looked for that in my search. Must be she joined the convo later.)


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183098 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
As long as she's capable of giving a reason why her view of it is universal, I'm happy to listen.


Frydaze1
>>

I do think that there is core TRUTH that is an integral part of creation, I think of it as the Word, in the Greek Logos, I think Chinese speak of it as Tao. Maybe it is what Plato referred to as the Form of the Good.

I think that it has little resemblance to all the things that Norm calls 'Natural Law'! The RCC seems to drag out 'Natural Law' so they do not have to say 'God said so.'

I think the reason that the words of Christ register with most people at a very core level, as true teachings is He was the Word made flesh. To deny the teachings of Christ is contrary to most people who seek the truth. Islam denies Christianity but not the teachings of Isa. Gandi agreed with the teachings even as he denounced christians for not living up to that standard.

If I am right then you should know when you read or hear His teachings. Most of the atheists on this board agree with the teachings of Christ that do not hang on the deity of Christ or the existence of God.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183100 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/1/2012 10:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Morality is inherently subjective. Every religion and every version of morality likes to think it is the only one. It isn't. There are billions of people in this world and therefore millions of ways of looking at the world. That's what I find so fascinating about studying religion, actually.

My religion and its teachings over the years differs greatly from Norm's idea of "natural law," but that makes me no less a moral person than him. We believe in different things. Some of what he believes I think is immoral, and I am sure he would say the same of me.

Viva La Difference!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183101 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
"That's like saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is subjective because humans are subjective or like saying that the Law of Gravity is subjective because humans are subjective. Such a statement is obviously fallacious."

Norm, no matter how much you want to you cannot bend, break or otherwise get around the Law of Gravity or the Pythagorean Theorm. You regularly bend, break, twist, spin, and otherwise ignore Natural Law whenever it suits your purposes.

"Or it may be proof that somebody is dwelling in utter ignorance of absolute truth."

Why not give up the deception? You are not fooling anyone. Everyone sees through it. Stop calling it Natural Law and call it what it really is: Norm's Law. After all, it applies only when you want it to and only in the manner you want it to.

Once you call it by it's proper name you will realize just how subjective it really is.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183106 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
(Umm:)Why not give up the deception? You are not fooling anyone. Everyone sees through it. Stop calling it Natural Law and call it what it really is: Norm's Law. After all, it applies only when you want it to and only in the manner you want it to.

Once you call it by it's proper name you will realize just how subjective it really is.

====================================
Well, I'm Catholic, too, and I DO believe that there is such a thing as natural law, and that the Catholic Church bases its moral teachings, at least in part, on it. But that only works in terms of broad concepts. Prohibitions against killing or harming others, stealing, lying, etc. - these are found in all cultures, and in all religions. That's natural law, in its essence. Some here have said that's just morality based on common sense.
Fine. A rose by another name.

Where the Catholic Church has lost credibility is:
1. In setting itself up as the arbiter of what natural law really is. This worked better in pre-Reformation Europe, where it had no competing churches to keep it honest.
2. In claiming to apply the concepts to the most detailed, legalistic rules. Not just the broad concept stuff.
3. And by logical extension, by claiming that since natural law applies to everyone, not just Catholics, the Church's teaching were, therefore, binding on everyone.

And my recollection of Catholic teaching of morality (bad old days, Pre-Vatican II, Baltimore Catechism) was that it was EXTREMELY subjective, even back then. There exceptions to every rule, and exceptions to the exceptions. Every act, moral or immoral, depended on the circumstances and the context.

Now some would say that the Ten Commandments are a close approximation of natural law. And I'd agree. But the ancient Jews didn't see it that way. They thought of the commandments as divine revelation, and their law as superior to all other nations. After all, Plato and Aristotle weren't there yet.

And claiming that natural laws applies in terms of detailed situations just doesn't work very well. And other than rape and adultery, it isn't very useful in the area of sexuality. Birth control, for example. Most rational, logical people would agree that practicing birth control is the responsible thing to do, at least some of the time. And so the Church's teaching fails the test of natural law by its own definition.
In past centuries the risk of pointing this out was being burned at the stake.

Today, the Church's risk is that Catholics do think for themselves, whether allowed to or not. And when they see the Church's teachings as absurd, they'll just ignore it. And the Church itself becomes less relevant.

Bill

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183118 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Now some would say that the Ten Commandments are a close approximation of natural law. And I'd agree.

I'm with Carlin on this one...it's a padded list. "'Ten' sounds official." (warning: may be offensive to some religious folks...if you're sensitive about such things, don't click.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-RGN21TSGk

Whittle it down to two.

"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful."
"Thou shalt not kill."

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183127 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe rape is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your newborn is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your mate after voluntary sex is wrong. I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong. I can probably go on all day with a list of things I think are wrong.

Frydaze,

What makes these things wrong?

-Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183129 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Whittle it down to two.

"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful."
"Thou shalt not kill."


Jesus did just that:

1. Love God with all you've got
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183131 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I believe rape is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your newborn is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your mate after voluntary sex is wrong. I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong. I can probably go on all day with a list of things I think are wrong.

Frydaze,

What makes these things wrong?

-Bryan



My subjective opinion, of course.

More specifically, they are all inhumane. They are the use of power to inflict your will on the less powerful or unsuspecting. They are the infringement of someone else's personhood. But again, they are only wrong because *I* feel they should be.

I would choose to live in a society that agrees with me. We would then have a legal code that enforces those opinions. We would call them morals, because as a society we agree to them. But that's still just a societal construct. Of course I believe that MY moral code is the best one. So I would also try to make other societies conform to it. But I don't kid myself that this makes it objective morality.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183132 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I believe rape is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your newborn is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your mate after voluntary sex is wrong. I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong. I can probably go on all day with a list of things I think are wrong.

Frydaze,
--------------
What makes these things wrong?




Society's collective opinion, informed by history, logic, and common sense. That's all we have to work with.


If Universal Law or any kind of revealed truth actually existed, then there would be no discussions such as this. The fact that there is disagreement proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Universal Law does not exist.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jeanwa Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183133 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 12:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong.

====================================

Get back to me on this one if/when there is not enough food to feed our population.

Jean

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183135 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful."
"Thou shalt not kill."

Jesus did just that:

1. Love God with all you've got
2. Love your neighbor as yourself


tis two.. but a very different two

arguably a better two .. or not


arguably only one (>:

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183137 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Get back to me on this one if/when there is not enough food to feed our population.

We have more than enough food to feed our population and a good chunk of the rest of the world. If I wanted use my own small suburban yard, I could probably feed me and DF most of the food we'd need, supplimented by dairy from a neighbor with goats and eggs from a different neighbor. Most people in our country grew the majority of their own food for centuries. Even in areas like Arizona or Michigan that have climate challenges.

Our problem isn't lack of food. And it is highly unlikely to be a problem in my lifetime.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183139 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
arguably only one (>:

Yeah.

My wife's mantra is "Love God, love neighbor, love God by loving neighbor".

She doesn't sit around thinking about it. She goes and does it.

Then again, my sitting around thinking (not about this stuff) gives us the income to allow her to go and do her stuff. Teamwork!

I'm reminded of a song:
Philosophers and ploughmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the Heart

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jeanwa Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183140 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I didn't mean to say the lack of food was a problem now.

I'm saying I think the rules would change if there was.

Jean

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183144 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm saying I think the rules would change if there was.

Ah. Yes, that would be an issue. Any time there is a shortage of things necessary for survival, morality gets a little stretchy.

Example (not based on fact): My neighbor's mother was diabetic. There are vials insulin in his house. His mother is dead and doesn't need them anymore. No one in the house needs them. I am diabetic and can't afford (or the area is out of) insulin. Is it moral for him to refuse to give me the insulin?

Preserving life is, to me, one of the strongest moral guidelines. But can I actually say it is immoral for him to not give me something I want or need, but which I have to right to?


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183145 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 1:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
but which I have *no* right to?


Spelling counts...


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183148 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 2:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I believe rape is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your newborn is wrong under all circumstances. I believe killing your mate after voluntary sex is wrong. I believe that kicking the weakest out to starve and die is wrong. I can probably go on all day with a list of things I think are wrong.

---------------
What makes these things wrong?

------------------

My subjective opinion, of course.

More specifically, they are all inhumane. They are the use of power to inflict your will on the less powerful or unsuspecting. They are the infringement of someone else's personhood. But again, they are only wrong because *I* feel they should be.

I would choose to live in a society that agrees with me. We would then have a legal code that enforces those opinions. We would call them morals, because as a society we agree to them. But that's still just a societal construct. Of course I believe that MY moral code is the best one. So I would also try to make other societies conform to it. But I don't kid myself that this makes it objective morality.


Interesting. So it seems for you, morality boils down to subjective preference. Like one who prefers chocolate to vanilla, you prefer no rape to rape. "Morality" has no more meaning or weight than that.

I will say that you are at least consistent with an atheist view. I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls. But as you explain, you don't delude yourself into thinking there is something objective about what you and your social group prefer.

Sure, you'd condemn any other group that promoted rape, but in your heart you'd know that they are just following what they think is best for them, and that makes it OK for them.

Do I have it right?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183150 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Do I have it right?
No.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183151 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 2:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
Sure, you'd condemn any other group that promoted rape, but in your heart you'd know that they are just following what they think is best for them, and that makes it OK for them.

Do I have it right?


Not exactly. You seem to have skipped over this part:
Of course I believe that MY moral code is the best one. So I would also try to make other societies conform to it. But I don't kid myself that this makes it objective morality.

I do believe my moral code is the right one. I'd do more than condemn another society; I would do my best to change their morals to match my own. Because I believe mine are right, and anyone breaking my moral code is immoral.

That doesn't make it objective. It just means that my subjective opinion is very important to me.



Interesting. So it seems for you, morality boils down to subjective preference. Like one who prefers chocolate to vanilla, you prefer no rape to rape. "Morality" has no more meaning or weight than that.

I will say that you are at least consistent with an atheist view. I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls. But as you explain, you don't delude yourself into thinking there is something objective about what you and your social group prefer.


Hike up your pants a little. Your attitude is showing.

There is nothing in the bible against raping little girls. Yet you believe it is wrong. If you believe that god is the source of all morality, and the bible is the only written guide to the mind of god, then you have ZERO basis for thinking that raping little girls is wrong. And yet you do. And you believe it more strongly than a chocolate versus vanilla preference. But you can't point to any reason for your belief. And other Christians will (and do) disagree with you. And, if fact, support marriage to young girls against their will and include sex as part of their marriage rights. Neither of you have a single biblical basis for your belief about raping little girls.

So first of all, cut the crap with your implication that because I'm an atheist I'm okay with raping little girls. Evidently being a christian doesn't change that belief either. (Or being a muslim. Or a buddhist.) In fact, as an atheist I am LESS likely to approve of it, since I don't take the bible as my sole guide to morality.

Knowing something is subjective doesn't stop me from feeling very strongly about it. Or from wanting my moral code to be universally *applied*.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183152 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Do I have it right?
-----
No.


I assumed as much, but since the question was about what Frydaze believes about morality, I'll let her set me straight ;-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183154 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
So first of all, cut the crap with your implication that because I'm an atheist I'm okay with raping little girls.

But I didn't say that. Don't jump to conclusions that I think you are immoral or something, or that atheists can't be moral. I don't believe that at all.

I acknowledged that you believe for you, it is wrong. But when you say it is based subjectively, you acknowledge that it is a matter of opinion, and that there is no moral law that applies objectively to humans being broken when someone else rapes. They are merely breaking the law in your head.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why you feel that the law in your head should be binding on others? What makes it better than their law?

I do believe my moral code is the right one. I'd do more than condemn another society; I would do my best to change their morals to match my own. Because I believe mine are right, and anyone breaking my moral code is immoral.

Couldn't Fred Phelps say the same thing?

Knowing something is subjective doesn't stop me from feeling very strongly about it. Or from wanting my moral code to be universally *applied*.

I agree totally. I don't deny your strong feelings about it. Dan Dennett, philosopher, says that evolution has foisted that feeling on you, and it has no deeper meaning.

I disagree. I think you are in touch with something intuitive about morality that is implanted on your heart from a different source.



You have other points I want to address, but it will have to wait

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183155 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Couldn't Fred Phelps say the same thing?


Yes, he could and he does. Which is because it is subjective. That doesn't mean I don't think he's wrong, immoral, insane, and dangerous. Of course he thinks the same of me. Society determines which of us is actually right... by their own subjective opinions. In the society of his church, I'm the crazy one.

I'd like to believe that my morals are based on a more objective view of the world than his. But even though I think my morals are *more* objective, I still don't think they *are* objective. I also think my morals are more objective than yours, since I don't have belief in a mythical god muddying the waters. ;-)


I agree totally. I don't deny your strong feelings about it. Dan Dennett, philosopher, says that evolution has foisted that feeling on you, and it has no deeper meaning.

I disagree. I think you are in touch with something intuitive about morality that is implanted on your heart from a different source.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

You have other points I want to address, but it will have to wait

Okey dokey.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183156 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I acknowledged that you believe for you, it is wrong. But when you say it is based subjectively, you acknowledge that it is a matter of opinion, and that there is no moral law that applies objectively to humans being broken when someone else rapes. They are merely breaking the law in your head.

What I'm having a hard time understanding is why you feel that the law in your head should be binding on others? What makes it better than their law?



I think it should be binding because I want it to be. I think it is better than their law because I believe it is better for society. That doesn't make me *actually* right. But *I* believe I'm right, and I'll fight pretty hard to convince others of that. If I convince enough others, it becomes the morality of that society.

Here's a simple test for you: Can someone behave immorally if they don't know what they're doing is immoral? Con someone behave morally if they don't know what they're doing is moral?

Examples:
- Person A tells person B something they believe to be true. But it isn't, actually true. Did they lie? Yes. Is that an immoral act?
- Person A accidentally and unknowingly drops a $100 bill which is found by a homeless and starving family, thereby saving their lives. Is that a moral act?
- A severely mentally disabled child walks into the bathroom and intentionally pushes a clock into the bathtub where his mother is taking a bath. He has no understanding of electricty or why it shouldn't mix with water. His mother dies from electrocution. Is that an immoral act?

I believe that those acts were neither moral nor immoral. Morality doesn't exist outside the mind of the person performing the action. Since that is the case, the morality of each act is entirely dependent on the mind (the understanding and intent) of the person committing the act. That means it is subjective, since not everybody's understanding and intent is the same even when committing the same actions.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183157 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 3:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls.

Seriously? Since someone else thinks the nature of morality is different you get to classify it as not *really* thinking it's *wrong*?

Let me turn it around and see what you think about how it reads:

Interesting. So it seems for you, morality boils down to following an authority's preference. Like one who follows a chef's preference on chocolate or vanilla, you follow in preferring no rape to rape. "Morality" has no more meaning or weight than that.

I will say that you are at least consistent with a theist view. I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls. But as you explain, you don't delude yourself into thinking there is something subjective (like little girls' preference for not being raped) in following what the authority prefers.

Sure, you condemn any others that promote rape, but in your heart you know that if you discovered that the authority preferred the rape of little girls, that would make it OK.

Do I have it right?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183158 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 4:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I believe that those acts were neither moral nor immoral. Morality doesn't exist outside the mind of the person performing the action.

I agree. (As if you didn't know!) It's all about context and personal perception.

For example, if I walk up and put a bullet in Bryan's brain while he's standing at a bus stop, that would be immoral. I should be punished. However, if we add one other detail such as "he was in the process of raping you", then suddenly it becomes moral to pull that trigger. At least as far as I, and most of society, are concerned.

Oh...and the Bible does cover rape somewhat tangentially. If a mob wants to lynch your house guest it is OK to send your daughters out to be raped by them. (Gen 19:8) So clearly at the very least there are times when it's OK, per the Bible.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183159 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 4:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Oh...and the Bible does cover rape somewhat tangentially. If a mob wants to lynch your house guest it is OK to send your daughters out to be raped by them. (Gen 19:8) So clearly at the very least there are times when it's OK, per the Bible.

I know you hate Christians and everything, but that action was not condoned.
This thread has taken a horrible turn, and I've read my last post on it.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183161 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 5:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I know you hate Christians...

No I don't. I know lots of Christians. I'm even married to one. It would be fair to say I'm not fond of Christianity (or any religion, but on this board we mostly talk about Christianity), but that's different. I flat don't like JR and a few others, but I actually do like you and Lawrence and Bryan and Robyn and some others.

As for the action, Lot is held up as an exemplary person. He's the only one saved from the city before it is destroyed. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer his actions are deemed in some manner "good" (otherwise he would not have been spared).

Now if one takes into consideration that this is OT, and so very old, written in a society that did not particularly value women, it makes more sense**. But then the "divinely inspired" bit is in jeopardy (since that should be independent of the society, and you would hope it would be less misogynistic).


** The context is that the guests were under his "protection" as his guests, and in the society of 3000 years ago that likely would have superseded the value of the daughters.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183163 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
> So first of all, cut the crap with your implication that because I'm an atheist I'm okay with raping little girls.

But I didn't say that.

When you said that Frydaze1 didn't think it was *really* *wrong*, you implied it - intentionally or not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183164 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 6:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
** The context is that the guests were under his "protection" as his guests, and in the society of 3000 years ago that likely would have superseded the value of the daughters.
>>

In the context the emissaries of God did not allow the daughters to be given to the crowd.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183165 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 6:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sure, you condemn any others that promote rape, but in your heart you know that if you discovered that the authority preferred the rape of little girls, that would make it OK.

Do I have it right?



Actually, yes. In our prior discussion of morality and rape on this board (since almost any discussion of morality seems to focus on rape) it was determined categorically that if God commands it, it is moral by definition. The only immorality would be in not doing as God commands.

So, yes, if God told him to rape a little girl he would do it and be proud of his moral act.


Reading your post from a non-theist's perspective, it was awesome. A perfect mirror to show how ridiculous his post was. Unfortunately, from a theist's perspective I'm afraid the "Yes, the authority figure defines morality" view is going to destroy your point.

But *dang* I enjoyed reading it.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183167 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 8:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Am I obligated to respond?


No I don't. I know lots of Christians. I'm even married to one. It would be fair to say I'm not fond of Christianity (or any religion, but on this board we mostly talk about Christianity), but that's different. I flat don't like JR and a few others, but I actually do like you and Lawrence and Bryan and Robyn and some others.


You take the opposite view vs. Christianity almost every time, even if it violates science and reason. I have rarely read you to write "You know I'm an atheist and all but that post makes no sense"

As for the action, Lot is held up as an exemplary person. He's the only one saved from the city before it is destroyed. It is therefore not unreasonable to infer his actions are deemed in some manner "good" (otherwise he would not have been spared).

No, he isn't. He's spared due to his father in law. He's tricked into incest and lives the rest of his life in shame dealing with the consequences. The rape never happened. It didn't. The people who were offered his daughters were rendered blind. The house it happened in was burned to the ground, as was the entire town that condemned it.
This act was in no way condemned.
You know how I know that I've won an argument with you? It is here:

Now if one takes into consideration that this is OT, and so very old, written in a society that did not particularly value women, it makes more sense**. But then the "divinely inspired" bit is in jeopardy (since that should be independent of the society, and you would hope it would be less misogynistic).


** The context is that the guests were under his "protection" as his guests, and in the society of 3000 years ago that likely would have superseded the value of the daughters.


Suddenly, the entire text is worth throwing out. You defended the story until you lost the argument, at which point it is merely the product of a bygone area.
Ray

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183168 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Dan Dennett, philosopher, says that evolution has foisted that feeling on you, and it has no deeper meaning.

I disagree. I think you are in touch with something intuitive about morality that is implanted on your heart from a different source.


We are social animals and we behave in a manner that promotes the overall health of the group. Cultures that don't, don't succeed for very long. That's why when anarchism and social structure dissolves, the society hits a wall and reverts back to a moral norm that leans toward the welfare of more, rather than less.

Because cultures may think its okay to rape women of a different culture doesn't change the basic evolutionary drive for social cooperation and order. Some of us just have a more global view of what defines the "group." So many of the countries that have extended bouts of social disorder also have vastly different cultures living within their borders.

Cultures that still promote the forced marriage of young girls aren't exactly poster cultures for success. Did they not get the implant and why?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183169 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 9:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Unfortunately, from a theist's perspective I'm afraid the "Yes, the authority figure defines morality" view is going to destroy your point.

I hope not. Because my point isn't that any particular view of meta-ethics (the root foundation for morality) is better than another. It's that all meta-ethical foundations are (in my opinion) pretty much equally unsatisfying or unsettling - mine included.

Like so many others, it's a conversation we've had before. I thought we had kind of established that theistic morality wasn't on a better footing than atheistic morality in the first post below (3 and a half years ago) but I guess not. :)

http://boards.fool.com/i-didnt-want-to-let-this-hang-any-lon...

which was a reply to:

http://boards.fool.com/if-you-found-out-that-god-commands-hu...

Later on there was this pair:

http://boards.fool.com/in-your-system-then-it-seems-like-you...

http://boards.fool.com/in-your-system-then-it-seems-like-you...

*shrug*

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183170 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 9:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Frydaze1,

There is nothing in the bible against raping little girls. Yet you believe it is wrong. If you believe that god is the source of all morality, and the bible is the only written guide to the mind of god, then you have ZERO basis for thinking that raping little girls is wrong.

One of the things I wanted to address when I had more time...

I can hardly believe you are serious about this. Assuming you are, you are very wrong about this, as there are several lines of argument from the Bible against rape:

1. sex is reserved for a man and woman inside a marriage. The Bible assumes the fact that the woman is old enough to marry. That would make sex with an under-aged girl immoral, one who is not old enough to marry.

2. Deut. 22:28ff makes it clear that rape was considered immoral in the OT.

3. Jesus and The Golden Rule: I would not want to be raped, so it would be wrong to rape someone else.

4. Jesus on the greatest commandments: #2 is love your neighbor as yourself.

5. Fornication, having sex with someone you're not married to, is immoral.

6. Lev 18:6 "Do not have sexual relations with a close relative" This would cover girls who are related to you, consensual or not

I'd argue also that some things would have just been unimaginably evil, even in the eyes of the ancient Hebrews. Raping little girls has to be near the top of the list.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183171 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 10:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I was beginning to think that you felt there was *really* something *wrong* with raping little girls.

----------------------

Seriously? Since someone else thinks the nature of morality is different you get to classify it as not *really* thinking it's *wrong*?


Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "real"? And "wrong"?

I mean objective, existing outside of the human mind. You and Frydaze don't believe that morality exists objectively.

If it's not objective is it real? You don't think so, so I'm not sure what your beef is.

Again, I wasn't saying she thinks it is ok for others to rape someone. I'm saying she has no objective basis for saying someone else's code is immoral.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183172 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/2/2012 10:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Like so many others, it's a conversation we've had before.

Are you implying I shouldn't discuss this with Frydaze because I've already discussed it with you?

My thought on these issues change over time as I find better arguments and drop weaker ones. And as I forget what the heck I said 3 years ago ;-)

I thought we had kind of established that theistic morality wasn't on a better footing than atheistic morality

I don't agree

Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183174 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 8:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are you implying I shouldn't discuss this with Frydaze because I've already discussed it with you?

No, that was not my intended implication. It was just a lead-in to link to the previous posts. (Posts where I thought you had at least modified your position after them....apparently not.)





> I thought we had kind of established that theistic morality wasn't on a better footing than atheistic morality

I don't agree

Then do I have it right in post 183157?
http://boards.fool.com/i-was-beginning-to-think-that-you-fel...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RayKinsella Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183175 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 8:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The house it happened in was burned to the ground, as was the entire town that condemned it

Condoned. The town that condoned rape was burned to the ground.
Good grief, I need to type slower.
Ray

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183176 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Then do I have it right in post 183157?

"It", as in my position? No, you don't have it right. Here's why:

for you, morality boils down to following an authority's preference

I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority. It is the holy, just, loving, and perfectly good Creator of the universe. God's commands for us are not merely preferences, but flow out of his good nature. His knowledge allows him to craft commands for us to maximize our happiness. Interesting to me, Frydaze comes up with a eerily similar set of precepts to what God's commands are.

if you discovered that the authority preferred the rape of little girls, that would make it OK

This is like asking if God could make a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides. It's a vacuous statement. God doesn't think raping little girls is good.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183177 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Good grief, I need to type slower.

<g>

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183178 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority. It is the holy, just, loving, and perfectly good Creator of the universe. God's commands for us are not merely preferences, but flow out of his good nature. His knowledge allows him to craft commands for us to maximize our happiness. Interesting to me, Frydaze comes up with a eerily similar set of precepts to what God's commands are.

It's very valid. Your moral preference is what you think god wants and is just as individually centric as frydaze's. Hence why you, Norm, Josh, Osama Bin Laden, Fred Phelps, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, Zvi Yehuda Kook, Muhammad, Jesus, Oral Roberts, Constantine the Great, and I'll stop there because I'll have to list virtually everyone who is alive today or has ever lived that believed/s in s creator god, all have slightly different to dramatically different understandings of how god wants us to behave.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183179 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 10:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Your moral preference is what you think god wants and is just as individually centric as frydaze's.

Of course it is, since we're both humans. We're imperfect. But it seems to me so far (and I don't claim to understand her yet) that Frydaze claims her morality is a figment of her imagination, and has no firmer foundation than that, no objective reality.

I'm claiming that there is an objective basis for morality, found in the commands of a good God to us, which we're obligated to follow. That I don't perfectly know God's mind on morality is an entirely different issue.

I further claim that this explains our experience of the world, and specifically morality, better than the subjective view. It is the only way to make sense of the claim "raping little girls is wrong". It's wrong because ultimately it violates the unchanging, good nature of God.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183180 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 10:22 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I further claim that this explains our experience of the world, and specifically morality, better than the subjective view. It is the only way to make sense of the claim "raping little girls is wrong". It's wrong because ultimately it violates the unchanging, good nature of God.
=============================
You can even leave God out of the picture for a moment. Raping little girls is wrong because it harms another person, and no good can come from it. Common sense tells you it's wrong.

In short, it violates natural law.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183181 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority. It is the holy, just, loving, and perfectly good Creator of the universe.


It's fascinating to me to hear a grown man (presumably educated) speak like this. I find myself asking: How do you know this?

Knowing something is more than just reading it in a book - any book.
And your description leads one to envision a man. With arms and legs. And sexual organs. Maybe a beard - as daVinci envisioned "him."

You constantly refer to "him" as "He" - which implies with no doubt whatsoever that this "him" is male. To be male you must have sexual organs.

And, to be omnipotent - as you claim your god to be - you must be able to make a square circle. Can your god make a square circle? It's a legitimate question - especially given all the other marvelous things you say "he" can do.

I find myself wondering how an adult human can buy into these beliefs (which defy all logic) and, with a straight face, propose the same to others who value their mind and reasoning ability. When someone approaches me with this kind of thing, I find that my brow wrinkles as my brain switches into high gear trying to make sense - any kind of sense - out of what they are saying.

From where I sit - not much different physically from where anyone else in the US sits (house, chair, desk, computer) - I can see no evidence of a god that can't be explained by natural occurrences.

People are starving in this world. People pray to their god and still die of cancer. People go to church and put money in the bowl while the power company cuts off their power. People win the lottery after praying. People win the lottery having never prayed a day in their lives. People drown in the ocean. People are saved from drowning in the ocean (usually by other people).

All the "evidence" for god is the same as the evidence for random, natural occurrences. There is no difference. And if there is no difference, there is no reason whatsoever to assume this fantastical god to whom you are supposed to bow in reverence and who allows people to starve in this world.

The whole idea of grown people with brains believing this stuff is just so ludicrous as to be almost comic. Only it isn't funny. It's probably the greatest human tragedy ever known.

AM
...sorry if I'm overstepping here... but it is what it is. Reality and I are on very good terms.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183182 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 10:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Reality and I are on very good terms.

Then I hope some day you come to know the reality of God's love for you in Jesus Christ.

Have a good day,

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183183 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 11:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Then I hope some day you come to know the reality of God's love for you in Jesus Christ.

Have a good day,

Bryan

------------


That's it?
No answers to the questions?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183184 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
1. sex is reserved for a man and woman inside a marriage. The Bible assumes the fact that the woman is old enough to marry. That would make sex with an under-aged girl immoral, one who is not old enough to marry.

Having read some commentaries on the subject, it seems that the usual age for a Jewish girl in the first century to be considered old enough to be betrothed was 12. This would be followed by a betrothal period of less than a year. So these girls were marrying at 13 or less.

Do you consider that a little girl? I do.


2. Deut. 22:28ff makes it clear that rape was considered immoral in the OT.

No it doesn't. It just says that after he rapes her he has to pay her father and then marry her. It doesn't say not to do it:

Deu 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.


3. Jesus and The Golden Rule: I would not want to be raped, so it would be wrong to rape someone else.

There is no "Golden Rule" in the bible. The second commandment is the closest you'll come to it.


4. Jesus on the greatest commandments: #2 is love your neighbor as yourself.

Only if they're of your same religion. That doesn't seem to apply to non-christians. Evidence of that would be the many, many times that god commanded his people to kill off their neighbors. Unless, of course, you're saying that god and his morals changed over time. But you wouldn't say that, because that would indicate that even god's morals aren't ultimate morals.


5. Fornication, having sex with someone you're not married to, is immoral.

Actually, while there are a lot of verses that condemn sexual immorality, I'm having trouble finding any that define it. And none that say not to have sex before marriage. There are some that say once you're married you shouldn't have sex with anyone else. But the closest I can find to a verse condemning sex before marriage is
1 Corinthians 7:1-40 which actually says that it would be better not to have *any* sex. Of course, this is the same verse that says once you're married you are *required* to have sex if your partner wants to. See above about marriage age of 12...


6. Lev 18:6 "Do not have sexual relations with a close relative" This would cover girls who are related to you, consensual or not

We weren't discussing incest at all.


I'd argue also that some things would have just been unimaginably evil, even in the eyes of the ancient Hebrews. Raping little girls has to be near the top of the list.

Oh no doubt rape is evil and many people have decided so. But not based on specific statements in the bible, except as they choose to interpret them. Unimaginable evil, though? Rape has happened throughout history in probably every culture. So I'd say that people have a lot more imagination than you give them credit for.



Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: benjd25 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183185 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority.

You think that to Frydaze1, Frydaze 1 is just any authority? No. In both descriptions, a very specific authority is specified.



I don't think it is valid to compare Frydaze's moral preference (or any human, not picking on her) with God. It is not just any authority. It is the holy, just, loving, and perfectly good Creator of the universe. God's commands for us are not merely preferences, but flow out of his good nature. His knowledge allows him to craft commands for us to maximize our happiness. Interesting to me, Frydaze comes up with a eerily similar set of precepts to what God's commands are.

This is like asking if God could make a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides. It's a vacuous statement. God doesn't think raping little girls is good.


Great. Now we're both insane. You, because you claim omniscience, and know absolutely that God's moral nature is not consistent with considering raping little girls good. Me, because I'm entertaining the possibility of going through the whole discussion again with hope of a different result. (In this case, the different result is that you won't again engage in willful ignorance of a conclusion you yourself arrived at in the past.)

I'm claiming that there is an objective basis for morality, found in the commands of a good God to us, which we're obligated to follow. That I don't perfectly know God's mind on morality is an entirely different issue.

The first contradiction didn't take long. If you don't perfectly know God's mind on morality, then it is possible (no matter how unlikely or likely) that God prefers the rape of little girls. If God did prefer it, by your understanding of morality, it would be good.


I further claim that this explains our experience of the world, and specifically morality, better than the subjective view. It is the only way to make sense of the claim "raping little girls is wrong". It's wrong because ultimately it violates the unchanging, good nature of God.

And if you found out that God's unchanging, good nature was such that God approved of raping little girls, it would be good. As previously agreed to - by both of us.

Engaging in insanity:

http://boards.fool.com/what-if-i-said-my-answer-to-your-ques...
http://boards.fool.com/i-would-but-i-think-were-not-on-the-s...
http://boards.fool.com/if-you-found-out-that-god-commands-hu...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183186 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 11:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The whole idea of grown people with brains believing this stuff is just so ludicrous as to be almost comic. Only it isn't funny. It's probably the greatest human tragedy ever known.

AM
...sorry if I'm overstepping here... but it is what it is. Reality and I are on very good terms.

=================================
This is the Christian Fools board, after all. Here we all agree that some things, you just accept as a matter of faith, knowing that they can't be proved in the same way that mathematical concepts can. Though we certainly may disagree on the finer points.

If it aggravates you so much, why are you one of the frequent flyers here? Or is there other information you seek?

I admit I read some stuff on the Atheist Fools board, but that's mostly because the political discussions there get interesting. I don't have an agenda to convert people who don't want to be.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183187 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I don't have an agenda to convert people who don't want to be.

----------

Neither do I.
But I am a thinking human being.
And I don't ignore the questions that pop up.
I asked legitimate questions.
How do you know god is a "he"?
Does he have male sexual organs?
"He" implies gender. Or does it not imply anything at all in the Christian world? I'm asking.

Can your god make a square circle?
If he can, great. I'd love to see one.
If he cannot, then how is it that you can call him omnipotent?

Why does "he" allow people to starve and die all manner of horrible deaths? How is his lack of action any different from random natural occurrences?

These are all legitimate questions.
Whether or not one is seeking to be "converted", questions deserve answers.

I can go to Wiki or other learned tomes to find out why wasps are shaped the way they are and why and how they do the things they do.

But I can only come to believers that have defined their god in such a way that my brain cannot accept it for answers to why their definitions don't seem to hold up in the light of reason.

You can't ask human beings to simply stop thinking when you are presenting a religion to them which demands answers to valid questions.

Just because you cannot come up with answers that make any sense doesn't mean the person asking the questions did it to harass you or embarrass you. It simply means the person asking the questions is seeking sensible answers.

If you expect me to throw away all reason and stop thinking, I cannot do that. I wouldn't ask the same of you. And I don't dislike you if you have questions about Atheism.

Unfortunately for you, Atheism is very simple to explain and understand. Individual Atheists, however, are individually every bit as complicated as anyone else.

Asking questions is valid.
Getting angry that they were asked is not.
(I'm not saying your post was angry - but it didn't sound as if you were going to invite me home for tea. :)


AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183188 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 12:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "real"? And "wrong"?

I mean objective, existing outside of the human mind. You and Frydaze don't believe that morality exists objectively.

If it's not objective is it real? You don't think so, so I'm not sure what your beef is.



There's a difference between "wrong" and "immoral". The words have completely different meanings. Let's not mix them up, since that muddies the discussion.



Again, I wasn't saying she thinks it is ok for others to rape someone. I'm saying she has no objective basis for saying someone else's code is immoral.

True... though not the way you meant it.

A man sees a hole in a wall, and his friends tell him he should have sex with that hole. He does so. Unbeknownst to him, there is a woman (or a little girl - though it should make no difference), tied and gagged, on the other side of that hole and he has actually raped her. Was his act immoral? No. In order for it to be immoral he has to have known that he was hurting her. It was, however, wrong. Because his knowledge was incomplete.

Rape is such an emotionally charged subject, which makes it difficult for people to even discuss it objectively. So let's try this instead:
A parent, honestly believing their child to be demon possessed, and honestly believing that the only cure to this condition is a beating, beats their child. Is this act immoral? No. They are doing what they do out of a genuine good intent even if I find it repulsive. This makes their act wrong (since there are no demons and beating the child wouldn't drive them out) though not immoral. So here we have a situation where someone is abusing another person against their will, but they are not doing it with intent to be immoral. It is therefore not immoral. Just seriously wrong.

A rape, though we consider it one of the worst abuses, is (objectively) only a degree of abuse. And all abuse can be discussed in the same terms. If the abuser feels their act to be immoral, it is. If they don't, it isn't. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not their act is wrong. Only with whether or not it is immoral. If they believe their act is not immoral, but that belief is based on a lack of knowledge or understanding, the act is objectively wrong. Not immoral, merely wrong.

If I say someone else else is acting immorally, what I usually mean is that their act is wrong. Meaning, if they had more information, they would also feel their act to be immoral. But I have to accept that my judgement of their act is based on my own understanding, which may also be imperfect. So unless I have specific knowledge that they don't have, it still becomes only a subjective judgement.

Example you may understand better:
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct about God. I believe that if there is a God, for him to permit someone to die in a car accident is wrong. If I committed such an act, it would be immoral. But, according to your beliefs, God has an overriding reason to permit such an act. If that is true, then His act is neither wrong nor immoral. My perception of it is exactly that: MY perception. In other words, subjective. Still, even though I'm mistaken, it would still be immoral for me to intentionally allow someone to die in a car accident. Even though God actually wants it to happen for his own reasons and the act is not truly wrong.

If you can find an example of someone committing rape when they do not actually believe *themselves* that it is an immoral act, then I will agree with you that the act wasn't immoral. And therefore, no, rape isn't objectively immoral. However, I don't think you'll find such a situation that isn't caused by a lack of knowledge or understanding; therefore such an act would still be wrong.


Frydaze1


P.S. I noticed you didn't respond to my question about various acts committed unknowingly by people. Can someone be moral or immoral if they aren't aware of the consequences of their actions? Or does morality depend on the person's intent? Your response to that will show very clearly why "wrong" and "immoral" don't have to go together.

Actually, that's the point of a barmitzvah. A Jewish child is not responsible for keeping laws he doesn't know. So he is taught the laws. He then proves to his society that he understands all of them... at which point he is considered a man, because he's now responsible for following them. Clearly they consider morality to be tied to understanding and intent.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183189 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 12:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I further claim that this explains our experience of the world, and specifically morality, better than the subjective view. It is the only way to make sense of the claim "raping little girls is wrong". It's wrong because ultimately it violates the unchanging, good nature of God.

It's wrong because as social animals we require particular behaviors from our members, just like all social creatures. We do this by balancing individual rights and freedoms against the need for social order, and the fulcrum point is where your freedom infringes on anothers. We enforce this balance through mores and laws. Other creatures use chemical markers, biting, physical aggression, etc.

That's the common intuitive insight that brings about a fairly common morality through most religions, philosophies, and cultures. Folks know themselves, not god.

I think god was an easy and brilliant invention that provided an imaginary police officer. Live life this way, or else. It might not sway everyone, but it certainly keeps some, perhaps many folks from committing acts that society would use police, courts, and/or jails to deal with.

It's a beautiful thing when it comes to the golden rule, helping the less well off, not killing or stealing, less so when it comes to killing infidels, or bashing gays.

I'm claiming that there is an objective basis for morality, found in the commands of a good God to us, which we're obligated to follow. That I don't perfectly know God's mind on morality is an entirely different issue.

As to an objective morality existing, I don't see anyone, anywhere, from any culture, background, or historical era, ever trying to convince anyone else as to objective truths and realities. No lengthy threads here at the fool or on other message boards about whether or not 2+2=4 or that the Earth actually orbits the Sun.

When it was proven that the Earth did actually orbit the Sun, there was a large segment of society that had their entire belief system threatened, and it took some time before they pulled their head's out of the sand. BUT an objective truth is an objective truth that can be verified by anyone, and does not require someone's word on it. Locking up the guy that let the cat out of the bag couldn't stop the inexorable mudslide of truth from finally prevailing.

Your objective morality is what you believe your god wants. To me, the inability to know perfectly what god wants is not a different issue. Morality is derived from the totality of our existence, which has evolved over millions of years. The only place I see disagreement is where that nature comes from, nature itself, or god. We're both fumbling as best we can to understand what exactly we are, and what type of life leads to the highest success for we humans and ourselves.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183190 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You defended the story until you lost the argument,...

I wasn't defending the text. I was referencing it. There's a huge difference. There is very little in the Bible that is defensible, IMO. Which is one reason why I'm not Christian.

I am aware that the daughters ended up not being raped, and the blindness, etc. However, it is not clear to me why Lot would be spared if he was not considered worthy of saving. His wife wasn't spared (since she looked back). The implication of his being spared the conflagration is that he was worthy, and therefore his actions were consistent with a worthy person.

That the daughters weren't actually raped is secondary. To quote my parents (and probably most parents), "it's the thought that counts". In this case, Lot's thought. The same Lot who was later allowed to depart unharmed.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183191 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's why when anarchism and social structure dissolves, the society hits a wall and reverts back to a moral norm that leans toward the welfare of more, rather than less.

I would be interested in your thoughts on Somalia, then. Not trying to be a pain, just trying to relate what you said to real-world observations.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183192 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Condoned. The town that condoned rape was burned to the ground.

It does make more sense that way.

:-)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183193 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I agree with your first comment "how do you know?". Everyone seems to think they know, but their answers are all a bit different. So clearly most (if not all) don't know.

However, I must take issue with your "square circle". "Square" and "circle" have very distinct, and incompatible, definitions. Even if there is a deity, and he/she/it is omni-cubed, short of changing the definitions I don't believe this can be done.

1poorguy (pedantic)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183194 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That's it?
No answers to the questions?

AM



Kudos on resisting the obvious cheap shot response.

Frydaze1 <--- resisting... but it's a struggle

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183195 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Frydaze1,

Just a reference, Galatians 5:19 mentions fornication (among other things) with the implication that it is "against the Spirit". It is among a list of "lusts of the flesh".

But mostly I think your post was a slam-dunk, point by point.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jeanwa Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183196 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That the daughters weren't actually raped is secondary. To quote my parents (and probably most parents), "it's the thought that counts". In this case, Lot's thought. The same Lot who was later allowed to depart unharmed.
======================================

Isn't this the same Lot that later was taken advantage of by his daughters who got him drunk?

Gen 19:30-36

Talk about close relations. Weren't they rewarded for this action?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183197 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
3. Jesus and The Golden Rule: I would not want to be raped, so it would be wrong to rape someone else.
-----------
There is no "Golden Rule" in the bible. The second commandment is the closest you'll come to it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Christianity

I only have time for the low hanging fruit today <g>

you have points that are worth addressing, I'll see if I can get to them. Others have good points as well, but since Frydaze is "new" to me, she has the priority.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183198 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Isn't this the same Lot that later was taken advantage of by his daughters who got him drunk?

Yes. As I understand it, the daughters feared that everyone but them was dead. They wanted to start the repopulation efforts (not realizing that TWO is not a sufficiently large genetic pool to accomplish this, of course), and Lot was the only male alive (to their knowledge).

Which could dove-tail into Frydaze1's missives on immoral/wrong. They didn't know other people were alive, so where they immoral?

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183199 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Just a reference, Galatians 5:19 mentions fornication (among other things) with the implication that it is "against the Spirit". It is among a list of "lusts of the flesh".

Actually, I read that one before my post. Here it is in its entirety:


Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


I agree that fornication is in there, and that it is mentioned in many places as a sin. But it's not really defined. Here is a link to every place where that same Greek word is used in the New Testament:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm...

And here is their definition of that Greek word:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,12
2) metaph. the worship of idols
a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols



Evidently that word could mean anything from sleeping with someone who is divorced, to eating a sacrament offered to an idol. In other words, the original Greek word doesn't specify sex between unmarried people. There IS no word in the bible that means that.


Frydaze1

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183200 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 1:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would be interested in your thoughts on Somalia, then. Not trying to be a pain, just trying to relate what you said to real-world observations.

Somalia, Lebanon, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. all involve multiple cultures within the geographic area. Yugoslavia's solution was to give each culture its own separate country, and the USSR sort of did the same. We pretty much just crushed and dominated the different culture we found here when we expanded west.

From what I understand about Somalia, there is a lack of central social structure, but there is localized social order maintained by the smaller groups. Even the pirates may be ruthless, but they have order and rules that allow them to be successful at their trade.

Cambodia is the only one that comes to mind where a country just up and went BSC without a bunch of different groups trying to kill each other off.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BoredPerson One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183201 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 2:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Am I obligated to respond?

Why would you respond? Earlier you said you read your last post on the thread. Obviously, that was not true since you responded to a later post. With regards to this thread, I guess honesty is subjective, not universal.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Frydaze1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183202 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 2:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Christianity

Ah ha! I stand corrected. Thank you.


Frydaze1

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183203 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
No, I think Ray responded because he realized the thread wasn't going where he thought it was. He and I sometimes have misunderstandings and/or jump to conclusions, but I would never question his honesty.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183208 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 7:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
See?
This is why thinking beings can't take Christians seriously.
They refuse to answer the difficult questions.
They simply dismiss you and clam up.

O well.
I can't say that I didn't expect it.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183209 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 7:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
See?
This is why thinking beings can't take Christians seriously.
They refuse to answer the difficult questions.
They simply dismiss you and clam up.

O well.
I can't say that I didn't expect it.

AM

============================
Now you're being rude.
Your "difficult questions" are not serious questions.

There is no such thing as a square circle. (Both "square" and "circle" are geometric concepts, as defined by humans. They are mutually exclusive by definition. So it's silly to ask the question, and would be sillier of me to attempt to answer it.

Does God have sex organs? I doubt it. I guess Mormons think so.
Why do we call God "He"? Why do we call a ship "She"?
Probably a similar reason, but I don't know either one.

And none of your questions are worth worrying about, IMHO.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183212 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 7:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Does God have sex organs? I doubt it.

Why? How else could "he" be "He"? If Adam was created in "His" image, we're pretty sure Adam had them. It's reasonable to infer "He" had them too.

I don't think this is a big deal, personally. But I find it interesting you don't think he had genitals (nor, I presume, nipples??).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183213 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
And none of your questions are worth worrying about, IMHO.

Bill

----------------


They might not be questions worth worrying about to you, but they are still legitimate questions. It's important to know what a Christian thinks about his/her god. If you can't describe your own god, how can you expect anyone else to ever believe in such a "being"?

You, apparently, believe this god to have a gender.
Since we can't see this god it's important to know exactly how you know this - and what that gender means. Unlike a ship, which we already know doesn't have gender, gender in a god would be important.

You also, apparently, believe this god to be omnipotent.
If "he" can do anything, then making a square circle shouldn't be very difficult. Or, we could go back to the other - and I think better - question: Can your god make a stone so big that even "he" cannot lift it?

Do you actually have a good idea of your god in your mind?
And if you do, why are these questions considered rude? Or difficult?
I've never yet met a Christian (or anyone else) who actually knows what they mean by "God". Not a single person has ever been able to tell me.

I was once asked by a believer that old question: "Don't you believe in God?" And I responded, "What do you mean by 'God'?" He simply closed his mouth and I could see his mind swirling - but he had no answer. He simply didn't know what he meant by "God."

If they don't know, how can they be so certain in their beliefs? This is the puzzle to me. If that is rude, I apologize.

But my questions are legitimate - even more legitimate because they are asked of an omnipotent "god" who, supposedly, can do anything - yet people are tortured and starve and die horrible deaths. Even those who pray to "him." How is this different from no god at all?

How?


AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183214 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Why? How else could "he" be "He"? If Adam was created in "His" image, we're pretty sure Adam had them. It's reasonable to infer "He" had them too.

Which presents the the question "How big is god's junk?"

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183215 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Does God have sex organs? I doubt it.

(1poorguy:) Why? How else could "he" be "He"? If Adam was created in "His" image, we're pretty sure Adam had them. It's reasonable to infer "He" had them too.
======================================
When it's said that God created mankind "in His own image and likeness", that's generally understood to mean that humans have a spiritual essence, or soul, if you will.

I don't believe there's any reason to think that God is limited to having a body, as we are. Though he can take on any form he wishes, whether a cloud, or pillar of fire, or burning bush.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183216 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Why? How else could "he" be "He"? If Adam was created in "His" image, we're pretty sure Adam had them. It's reasonable to infer "He" had them too.




meh.

he's a "He" because society is patriarchal

his 'image' is metaphor.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183217 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
God's commands for us are not merely preferences, but flow out of his good nature.

Then why did he kill the entire world, including many innocents, with a flood? Why does he allow war? Where was he when the flu pandemic killed 20 million in 1918, or half of Europe with the plague in the 1400's? Why does he allow corrupt CEO's to loot their companies, babies in Africa to starve, or Celine Dion to sing?
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183218 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
You, apparently, believe this god to have a gender.

No, actually. I think God is more of an "it" than a he or a she. I think of God as more like "The Force" in Star Wars. But that's me; I get sort of New Age-ish at times.

Since we can't see this god it's important to know exactly how you know this - and what that gender means. Unlike a ship, which we already know doesn't have gender, gender in a god would be important.

I'm flattered to learn that my beliefs are so important to you. But I don't think the notion of gender even exists with God.

If "he" can do anything, then making a square circle shouldn't be very difficult.

It's a nonsensical question, because "square" and and "circle" are mutually exclusive shapes. I have no idea if God even thinks of shapes. Geometry, like the other branches of mathematics, are human ways of measuring and describing things. I don't know if God does math at all. So no, as we define the terms, God could not do that.

Or, we could go back to the other - and I think better - question: Can your god make a stone so big that even "he" cannot lift it?

Well, there's no answer to that one. I tend to think that God could summon all the energy he needed to move anything. But I suppose he'd run out of matter in the universe at some point. So I'll say no. But that's my opinion.

Bill

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183219 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OK, didn't mean to quote 1poorguy, in the last post. It was Angel May I was responding to.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183220 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Then why did he kill the entire world, including many innocents, with a flood? Why does he allow war? Where was he when the flu pandemic killed 20 million in 1918, or half of Europe with the plague in the 1400's? Why does he allow corrupt CEO's to loot their companies, babies in Africa to starve, or Celine Dion to sing?



just because you (& i) don't understand how those are Good Things, doesn't mean they aren't Good Things.




... Celine Dion might necessarily follow from allowing the existence of music ....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183221 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 9:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<meh.

he's a "He" because society is patriarchal

his 'image' is metaphor.>>

Yep.

Regarding square circles and very heavy rocks:

"nonesense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183222 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/3/2012 10:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

"nonesense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."



It does when you have people declaring that "God" can do ANYTHING.
That's quite a statement. Without a shred of proof.
Without any kind of sensible or reasonable explanation.
Without any idea whatsoever of what they actually mean by "God."

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183223 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 1:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I think you are in touch with something intuitive about morality that is implanted on your heart from a different source.



That's absurd. Humans don't have morality wired into our brains from birth. It's taught to us by society.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183224 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 2:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Your moral preference is what you think god wants and is just as individually centric as frydaze's.
--------
Of course it is, since we're both humans. We're imperfect.




But if Universal Law existed, there would be no disagreement, because the text would be right there, just like the Quadratic Formula.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183228 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There is no "Golden Rule" in the bible. The second commandment is the closest you'll come to it.

The Golden Rule most certainly is in the Bible.

Not sure why you think the second commandment has anything to do with it:

“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183229 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,


Well, that seems fair.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183230 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
It does when you have people declaring that "God" can do ANYTHING.
That's quite a statement. Without a shred of proof.
Without any kind of sensible or reasonable explanation.


Well, I'd say they have a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'God is omnipotent'.

Could we claim 'reality' is omnipotent? Just musing.

Without any idea whatsoever of what they actually mean by "God."

With you there. I don't think most folks have given it much thought. I believe that for many Christians God is basically equivalent to a cosmic Santa.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183231 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Golden Rule most certainly is in the Bible.

Greeked, multiple times. Hard to read ahead on a 120+ post thread!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183232 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Well, that seems fair.


I know. Those folks who want the 10 commandments posted up all over, they should actually read the text in full, and not just what they see on bill boards. The actual '10' (from Exodus 20) have 'issues'.

#10 is nice:

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

Anything that belongs to your neighbor, like his wife...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183233 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Anything that belongs to your neighbor, like his wife...



I object!
Women are not cattle.
They don't "belong" to anybody but themselves.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183234 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 11:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I object!
Women are not cattle.
They don't "belong" to anybody but themselves.


Kind of like cats

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183235 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
When it's said that God created mankind "in His own image and likeness", that's generally understood to mean that humans have a spiritual essence, or soul, if you will.

That seems reasonable. But then why all the fuss over evolution? Evolution don't care 'bout no souls. The assertion I hear from many (most?) Christians is that we were created as-is in the form of the Creator. This would include a "spirit", I would think, but also clearly is about the actual physical form.

Clearly you are not in that camp. Polls seem to indicate about half the population is. I wonder if that half thinks God has genitals and nipples? (Again, it's really a pretty trivial question. The main interest is in how people think about the question, not the question itself, IMO.)

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Wradical Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183236 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The assertion I hear from many (most?) Christians is that we were created as-is in the form of the Creator. This would include a "spirit", I would think, but also clearly is about the actual physical form.
===============================
I'd describe that as the fundamentalist, non-evolution-believing kind of Christians. I don't think it describes the majority today.

Bill

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183237 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OK, didn't mean to quote 1poorguy, in the last post.

I don't believe you did. All the quotes were from AM.

Your answer to one of her queries was the same as mine (square/circle have different definitions).

1pg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183238 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I object!
Women are not cattle.
They don't "belong" to anybody but themselves.


That was my point!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: NigelGlitter Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183239 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Could we claim 'reality' is omnipotent? Just musing.

It's missing two components.

One, reality is not an intelligent agent.

Two, reality is bound by the physical laws of the universe.

The claims relating to god are he is an active, intelligent agent not bound by any physical law.

The rub is no one can seem to prove that supernatural activity occurs, whether it be ghosts, goblins, flying elephants, or gods.

Well, I'd say they have a misunderstanding of the meaning of 'God is omnipotent'.

I've generally referred to a possible creator as "Norm." He wears thick black rimmed glasses, a lab coat, and a pocket protector, and has zits. He lives in another universe and created ours as a science project.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183240 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'd describe that as the fundamentalist, non-evolution-believing kind of Christians. I don't think it describes the majority today.

I hope you're right. Wiki seems to agree (with only 43% believing in as-is creation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#...

Though the numbers are a little confusing as there is godless evolution and god-guided evolution, which I assume together make up the 49% number quoted for those who believe in evolution.

In any event, it doesn't appear to be a clear majority either way.

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183241 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
See?
This is why thinking beings can't take Christians seriously.
They refuse to answer the difficult questions.
They simply dismiss you and clam up.
>>

Some think Christians are not thinking beings,
Some are unable to hear the answers to difficult questions.
They simply dismiss you and insult you.

O Well,
I cannot say that I did not expect it.
L

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183244 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 12:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<
That's absurd. Humans don't have morality wired into our brains from birth. It's taught to us by society.
>>

Many animals have certain behaviors ingrained at birth. It would be absurd to assume that human beings have none.

I think society and nurture does often override that which is nature.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183247 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Polls seem to indicate about half the population is. I wonder if that half thinks God has genitals and nipples?


he pretty much has to ... he's got Abigail white beard,
can't do that without a bit of testosterone no?



(-

Print the post Back To Top
Author: feedmeNOWhuman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183250 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 1:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<
That's absurd. Humans don't have morality wired into our brains from birth. It's taught to us by society.
>>
------------
Many animals have certain behaviors ingrained at birth. It would be absurd to assume that human beings have none.




Instinctive behavior (like knowing how to suck to get milk, or having the desire to copulate) and understanding of morality (stealing and killing are detrimental to society) are two different things.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183265 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<
Instinctive behavior (like knowing how to suck to get milk, or having the desire to copulate) and understanding of morality (stealing and killing are detrimental to society) are two different things.
>>

Make a dog lie down with a cat, that dog then recognizes the other animal as a member of the family, the dog may still chase the cat, the cat may scratch the dog but the dog will not kill the cat, it is instinctive, but there is more than just survival instincts in the genetic code.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183280 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/4/2012 10:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In other words, the original Greek word doesn't specify sex between unmarried people. There IS no word in the bible that means that.

Evidently the Greek word in question (pornea, or a variant thereof) can mean all those things depending on context and usage. I consulted the Oracle of Fundy Coworker. Alas he sent me a PDF with a word analysis of that term, so I can't really post it here.

I will press him a bit for more detail (specifically the Galatians passage), though he also mentioned Corinthians to me (which I haven't checked yet).

1poorguy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183287 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/5/2012 9:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The claims relating to god are he is an active, intelligent agent not bound by any physical law.

The rub is no one can seem to prove that supernatural activity occurs, whether it be ghosts, goblins, flying elephants, or gods.


That does seem to be a bit of a problem for the believer (in an interventionist God).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183289 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/5/2012 9:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That does seem to be a bit of a problem for the believer (in an interventionist God)

What do you believe about the accounts of healing in the NT? Or the resurrection? Do those count?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183300 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/5/2012 12:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What do you believe about the accounts of healing in the NT? Or the resurrection? Do those count?

They don't count as proof.

What do you think about Matthew 27:51-53? Description of actual, historical events, or something else?

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[e] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183304 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/5/2012 1:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What do you believe about the accounts of healing in the NT? Or the resurrection? Do those count?
-------
They don't count as proof.


I mean, would they count if they happened, and do you think they happened?

What do you think about Matthew 27:51-53? Description of actual, historical events, or something else?

I have no reason to believe it is not historical. I accept Jesus' miracles and resurrection as historical events. There is no stretch to accept this passage, although I admit I don't understand what it adds to the faith or why it was included, at least not the zombie* part.

=Bryan

*tongue-in-cheek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183374 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/10/2012 12:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I mean, would they count if they happened, and do you think they happened?

I'm currently agnostic about miracles and the bodily resurrection. I don’t know if they happened, but they are not the kind of thing that does usually happen. I cannot take as proof the written accounts from decades after the events by people clearly with an agenda. It might be evidence, but it’s not proof.

I have no reason to believe it is not historical. I accept Jesus' miracles and resurrection as historical events. There is no stretch to accept this passage, although I admit I don't understand what it adds to the faith or why it was included, at least not the zombie* part.

You don't think events like this would be recorded in extra-biblical sources? I mean, that curtain was feet thick. It would have been a huge deal for it to have torn in two. And dead people wandering around? That would surely have caused some chatter.

In my opinion it is symbolic language, not history remembered. And there the slippery slope starts…

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183411 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/11/2012 10:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I'm currently agnostic about miracles and the bodily resurrection. I don’t know if they happened, but they are not the kind of thing that does usually happen.

Resurrections don't usually happen. Not so sure about healing miracles. I've read too many accounts of Christians praying for healing for their Muslim or Hindu neighbors (in Africa and India, for example), and seeing whole families and even villages coming to faith in Christ after they witness the healing.

A lot is going on in the world that we don't see.


I cannot take as proof the written accounts from decades after the events by people clearly with an agenda. It might be evidence, but it’s not proof.

I'd never say there is proof. But the resurrection was being proclaimed within weeks of the event. And Paul's account is chock full of non-Greek elements that attest to an early, Aramaic source. Proof that it wasn't a late development, but was believed almost immediately.

I've yet to see any naturalistic account of the accepted facts surrounding the resurrection (empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith) that is not ad-hoc and less plausible than the resurrection hypothesis itself.

Have you read Craig's "Reasonable Faith" yet? Probably the best book on the case for Christian faith I've read yet.

-Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdrianC Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183478 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/12/2012 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
But the resurrection was being proclaimed within weeks of the event.

But the writings we have that describe it were written decades later. Paul's earliest letter was written maybe 20 years after.

I've yet to see any naturalistic account of the accepted facts surrounding the resurrection (empty tomb, the post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith) that is not ad-hoc and less plausible than the resurrection hypothesis itself.

Accepted facts?

I have a few Craig debates on MP3. I'll listen to them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bdhinton Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183480 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/12/2012 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Accepted facts?

Yes, by historians. The three I listed represent some of the more important facts according to the consensus.

I have a few Craig debates on MP3. I'll listen to them.

His debates give only the barest skeleton of an argument. Kind of like listening to the debate last night to get details of the Romney tax plan.

If you want to challenge your own doubts, as an intellectually astute person that you are, you'll need more than that. IMO. His book goes into a lot of detail.

He has a great website as well: reasonablefaith.org
-Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 1poorguy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 183485 of 196748
Subject: Re: Cardinal Carlo Martini Date: 10/12/2012 1:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I have a few Craig debates on MP3. I'll listen to them.

There are several on YouTube, mostly with Christopher Hitchens. IMO, WLC was seriously out-matched by CH. It was a slaughter. WLC's arguments were full of logical fallacies.

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (147) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement