Moral Guidance

RecordStraight

Safehands wrote: »

Morality is not confined to killing or being really nasty. Morality involves a way of living.
In my opinion, some of the role models adored by our children, live quite immoral existences. Money is their God. How much money can one person spend? Young girls buy magazines which portray "stars" living unbelievably lavish lifestyles, looking like stick insects, which our young people try to emanate. I don't know about you guys, but I think that there are moral issues associated with this type of hype which sends a dreadful message to our kids.
We see football stars being "sold" and earning telephone numbers of pounds or euros. How is that possible? By exploiting young kids, selling football kits, manufactured for coppers in the Far East and sold to our kids for a king's ransome. Who is speaking out about this? Nobody, because it is totally accepted in our modern society. Who is providing the money for these outrageously priced shirts? Parents and guardians, who are supposed to be the ones providing the moral guidelines, that's who! They are in the exploitation loop also.

Of course, God may not be the best role model either, as he/she demands that everyone worship him/her, and he/she can break the rules that he/she expects everyone else to adhere to. Also there's the slavery and genocide stuff which Hinault is furiously ignoring, and the changed 'timeless and unchanging' morals found in the OT and the NT...

ScumLord

Safehands wrote: »

Morality is not confined to killing or being really nasty. Morality involves a way of living.
In my opinion, some of the role models adored by our children, live quite immoral existences. Money is their God. How much money can one person spend? Young girls buy magazines which portray "stars" living unbelievably lavish lifestyles, looking like stick insects, which our young people try to emanate. I don't know about you guys, but I think that there are moral issues associated with this type of hype which sends a dreadful message to our kids.
We see football stars being "sold" and earning telephone numbers of pounds or euros. How is that possible? By exploiting young kids, selling football kits, manufactured for coppers in the Far East and sold to our kids for a king's ransome. Who is speaking out about this? Nobody, because it is totally accepted in our modern society. Who is providing the money for these outrageously priced shirts? Parents and guardians, who are supposed to be the ones providing the moral guidelines, that's who! They are in the exploitation loop also.

I think you must not be paying attention because people cry out about it all the time. Tesco is actually losing market share in Europe last I heard.

At any opportunity I'll give out about corporations and the people who fund them (their customers). I'll give out about intensive farming, running animal welfare, I don't have anything against farming I just think it should be done right with respect given to the animals.

I threw out my TV and stopped listening to pop culture entirely, it all makes me sick. If people would show more interest in science and learning we could be doing so much more as a species but we have become somewhat individualistic. Although I think the human race is in a pretty major transition phase between really intelligent animal and something far greater. It's probably going to be another 100 years of rapid development before the human race can take stock of what makes a good society.

Frank Bullitt

hinault wrote: »

The OT records that God gave man several direct warnings that if man did not reform his ways, retribution would follow.

You make the common mistake claiming "God killed civilians" but forget to mention that these civilians had all been given fair warning that they would be killed if they did not reform their ways.

Says a lot about your god then, that he would just kill at will then.

Thats some morality!

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

He's the absolute truth that makes mistakes, contradicts himself and doesn't show much understanding or foresight for the intentions of the creatures he created.

What mistakes?
What contradictions?

God created man with free will.

ScumLord wrote: »

But if you don't agree with him he might kill you or send you for eternal torture.

The person sends themselves to eternal torture.

smacl

hinault wrote: »

The person sends themselves to eternal torture.

Regardless of the sin committed, infinite punishment for a finite crime with no possibility of release can hardly be considered morally just. Particularly where the crime might be no mare than not acknowledging the existence of the God in question, or mistakenly plumping for the wrong God through no fault other than being born to the wrong parents in a different culture. Seems hateful, vengeful, and more than a bit petty from where I'm sitting.

I think one of the biggest issues with morality based on religion is that it attempts to apply that morality to people who do not subscribe to the religion, and treat non-believers variously as miscreants, sinners and criminals. Given the number of diverse religions out there, who treat their God(s) as the one true God(s), this has been and will always be a source of conflict.

RecordStraight

smacl wrote: »

Seems hateful, vengeful, and more than a bit petty from where I'm sitting.

God does sometimes seem to be a bit immature in his/her actions.

And permissive of genocide, slavery etc. etc.

Safehands

Gintonious wrote: »

Says a lot about your god then, that he would just kill at will then.

I don't agree with the death penalty. God does, apparently.

smacl

Safehands wrote: »

I don't agree with the death penalty. God does, apparently.

Not just death either. I imagine most involved are destined for the pit to endure an eternity of torture. Sadism in the extreme.

Safehands

smacl wrote: »

Not just death either. I imagine most involved are destined for the pit to endure an eternity of torture. Sadism in the extreme.

Its hard to believe that good people can be so brainwashed that they think this type of punishment is morally justified. I don't understand it.

silverharp

Imagine if a family tried introducing god style justice in the home. "Now johnny . every time you misbehave you will need to seek forgiveness from me but I will have to beat your mother up. Or a court system where someone else could take the punishment of the guilty person. Outside of some weird military basic training the morality is just bizarre and very uninspired .

RecordStraight

smacl wrote: »

Not just death either. I imagine most involved are destined for the pit to endure an eternity of torture. Sadism in the extreme.

Yes, that does seem a bit cruel. The idea of sending my own creation, my little girl, to burn in hell for all eternity for being naughty is absolutely repulsive, yet it is what Hinault believes God does.

silverharp

RecordStraight wrote: »

Yes, that does seem a bit cruel. The idea of sending my own creation, my little girl, to burn in hell for all eternity for being naughty is absolutely repulsive, yet it is what Hinault believes God does.

The flip side is that if you go to heaven you will have to watch your heathen kids burn in hell. Can't imagine heaven being much fun in such an instance.

RecordStraight

silverharp wrote: »

The flip side is that if you go to heaven you will have to watch your heathen kids burn in hell. Can't imagine heaven being much fun in such an instance.

It does suggest that you would benefit from a fairly selfish and compassion-free personality to really enjoy it as you sit around in heaven.

Michael OBrien

RecordStraight wrote: »

It does suggest that you would benefit from a fairly selfish and compassion-free personality to really enjoy it as you sit around in heaven.

Well that does seem to the be primary traits of the god that supposedly created it.

hinault

smacl wrote: »

Regardless of the sin committed, infinite punishment for a finite crime with no possibility of release can hardly be considered morally just. Particularly where the crime might be no mare than not acknowledging the existence of the God in question, or mistakenly plumping for the wrong God through no fault other than being born to the wrong parents in a different culture. Seems hateful, vengeful, and more than a bit petty from where I'm sitting.

I think one of the biggest issues with morality based on religion is that it attempts to apply that morality to people who do not subscribe to the religion, and treat non-believers variously as miscreants, sinners and criminals. Given the number of diverse religions out there, who treat their God(s) as the one true God(s), this has been and will always be a source of conflict.

We are all sinners.

That we are all sinners is the preface for all Catholic teaching and it was this teaching throughout Christianity until the schism of the 16th century.

Scripture tells us that God cannot abide any trace of sin. But because each of us are sinners, God gives each of us the means to recant our sins and to strive to become more holy, through the sacraments which his church bequeathed to humanity.

Those who die in a state of mortal sin are deemed to send themselves to hell for eternity.

There are huge numbers of writings which consider the issue of those who are born outside the faith and who have no knowledge of Jesus Christ and his church, and their possible eternal fate.
If these people lead what would aspire to be a catholic life, would they be saved. We simply do not know the answer to this question.

The more problematic issue is the eternal fate of those souls who know the teaching of the church but who choose regardless to reject that church teaching, or who reject that church in it's entirety.
In my opinion, these souls are in a far worse position than the souls who have never had any knowledge of the church or it's teachings.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

We are all sinners.

In god's eyes, because someone eat his apple once.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

In god's eyes, because someone eat his apple once.

Essentially.

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused The Fall thereby allowing sin and everything that has subsequently derived from sin, to enter existence.

RecordStraight

hinault wrote: »

Scripture tells us that God cannot abide any trace of sin.

Odd then that he created a race where all of us are sinners. Own goal there, I reckon.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

We are all sinners.
That we are all sinners is the preface for all Catholic teaching and it was this teaching throughout Christianity until the schism of the 16th century.
The more problematic issue is the eternal fate of those souls who know the teaching of the church but who choose regardless to reject that church teaching, or who reject that church in it's entirety.
In my opinion, these souls are in a far worse position than the souls who have never had any knowledge of the church or it's teachings.

Hinault, the church tried to take a lead in teaching ethically correct behavior. Part of their teaching was that people who did not attend Mass on a Sunday would suffer the same eternal consequence as someone who committed a murder. These days they try to deny ever teaching that. They also told us that unbaptised babies would go to "Limbo". The fact that they preached these lies removes their right to be held up as moral guardians, in my opinion.

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

Hinault, the church tried to take a lead in teaching ethically correct behavior. Part of their teaching was that people who did not attend Mass on a Sunday would suffer the same eternal consequence as someone who committed a murder. These days they try to deny ever teaching that. They also told us that unbaptised babies would go to "Limbo". The fact that they preached these lies removes their right to be held up as moral guardians, in my opinion.

The prohibition on murder and the requirement to keep the Sabbath both are commandments. These commandments pre-date the ministry of Jesus Christ but he invoked these commandments saying that we must adhere to them.

The teaching upon Limbo has changed.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

The prohibition on murder and the requirement to keep the Sabbath both are commandments. These commandments pre-date the ministry of Jesus Christ but he invoked these commandments saying that we must adhere to them.

The teaching upon Limbo has changed.

So if I may quote you from earlier:

A true moral teaching should be true (a) for all time and (b) should be universal.

So you just stated that the moral teaching of the bible already changed, even in more examples than Limbo, according to your own definition for a true moral teaching we cannot use it anymore for that. Do I understand you right?

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

The prohibition on murder and the requirement to keep the Sabbath both are commandments. These commandments pre-date the ministry of Jesus Christ but he invoked these commandments saying that we must adhere to them.

The teaching upon Limbo has changed.

murder is an illegal killing, so by definition it's always prohibited.

Killing however is fine if (a) you're God or (b) it's in self-defence.

hinault

Harika wrote: »

So you just stated that the moral teaching of the bible already changed, even in more examples than Limbo, according to your own definition for a true moral teaching we cannot use it anymore for that. Do I understand you right?

The teaching upon the existence of Limbo was not a moral teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

There is no teaching upon the existence of Limbo in the New Testament. Scripture is silent upon the eternal fate of those babies not baptised who die.

hinault

SW wrote: »

murder is an illegal killing, so by definition it's always prohibited.

Killing however is fine if (a) you're God or (b) it's in self-defence.

Poster Safehands referred to murder.
Murder is taking another life outside of self defence.

Harika

hinault wrote: »

The teaching upon the existence of Limbo was not a moral teaching.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

There is no teaching upon the existence of Limbo in the New Testament. Scripture is silent upon the eternal fate of those babies not baptised who die.

So where did the Limbo teaching come from?

hinault

Harika wrote: »

So where did the Limbo teaching come from?

If you read the link I provided it gives some insight as to where the teaching of Limbo came from.

Here's the link again
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Harika

hinault wrote: »

If you read the link I provided it gives some insight as to where the teaching of Limbo came from.

Here's the link again
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The beauty of defying morality on a book and if you don't like it (or enough pressure is put on) reading it again and changing it to fit the developed society. So again, how can this be used as a true moral teaching?

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

Essentially.

Whatever Adam and Eve did caused The Fall thereby allowing sin and everything that has subsequently derived from sin, to enter existence.

I still think it's a bit much to condemn all humans that will ever exist on the basis two eat one of god's apples. You wouldn't encourage your children to carry on your contempt and pass it down to their children forever and ever because a neighbour eat a biscuit you liked when you had them over for tea one evening.

SW wrote: »

murder is an illegal killing, so by definition it's always prohibited.

Killing however is fine if (a) you're God or (b) it's in self-defence.

Or god appears to you in an hallucination and tells you he's on your side in a forthcoming battle.

hinault

Harika wrote: »

The beauty of defying morality on a book and if you don't like it (or enough pressure is put on) reading it again and changing it to fit the developed society. So again, how can this be used as a true moral teaching?

How can what be used as a moral teaching?

Harika

hinault wrote: »

How can what be used as a moral teaching?

The word of god or a 2000 year old book. Depends on yourself.