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.
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.
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.
ScumLord wrote: » But if you don't agree with him he might kill you or send you for eternal torture.
hinault wrote: » The person sends themselves to eternal torture.
smacl wrote: » Seems hateful, vengeful, and more than a bit petty from where I'm sitting.
Gintonious wrote: » Says a lot about your god then, that he would just kill at will then.
Safehands wrote: » I don't agree with the death penalty. God does, apparently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
hinault wrote: » We are all sinners.
ScumLord wrote: » In god's eyes, because someone eat his apple once.
hinault wrote: » Scripture tells us that God cannot abide any trace of sin.
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.
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.
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.
A true moral teaching should be true (a) for all time and (b) should be universal.
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?
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.
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.
Harika wrote: » So where did the Limbo teaching come from?
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 againhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
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.
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?
hinault wrote: » How can what be used as a moral teaching?
