Are people naturally virtuous/vicious or not?

[clem456]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Yep, I see the result on the actions of myself and others and can rationalize if something is good or not for the individual and overidingly for the good of the society we must all live and survive and prosper in.

So I don't want to pay the amount of tax I have to pay. I could so easily take measures to avoid at least some of my tax burden. Individually this doesn't suit me, but I can see the benefits to society when all tax payers pay their due.

There is indeed billions of moral standards - the Catholics that contracept, or have sex before marriage don't all feel they're being immoral and I'm sure many rationalize this to themselves. We all have our own personal standards, if we're not robots. We have a mind, and can think for ourselves.

But the over all good is more or less enshrined in law, begrudginly agreed by most and applicable to everyone and comes from the thousands of years of our experimentation with that's a fair balance between the best interests of the individual and the best interests of society.

Imposing a Deity who is ''Good'' and His standards are the gold standard is just silly - to me.

Because we only have human interpretation of that this God wants, as good.

Look at the OT.

The people back then had no problem with child sacrifice, slavery, multiple wives, keeping concubines, underage sex, or genocide - and funnily enough, neither did their God

As we evolved and developed our codes of living together, guess what - suddenly salvery isn't ok any more, taking multiple wives isn't ok any more, and we have rules of engagement in war that if abused can lead to trials for war crimes and genocide.

Something the God of the OT didn't shout too loundly about, as far as I can see.

Sarah x

That's very nice, but avoids the question I asked...
How do -YOU KNOW-...what is good?
How do you know your good is the good, when someone else says no, my good is the good?
Or are all claims at goodness equally meritable?
At one time women were considered to be property over most of the world. Apparently that definition of good is ok with you?

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by clem456

That's very nice, but avoids the question I asked...
How do -YOU KNOW-...what is good?

There is cleary some kind of communication breakdown going on here, because I've answered this several time.

I rationalize my actions, and their consequences, in the framework of the law and societies didcated accepted behavior, with the view to maximizing good and minimizing harm.

How do you know your good is the good, when someone else says no, my good is the good?

Oh for goodness sake.

I rationalize the information - if they put up a convincing argument as to why I ought to not do something, such as eating too much chocolate for the good of my health, then if they make their case and I'm a rational being, I will attempt to alter my behavior!

Or are all claims at goodness equally meritable?

Once again, you think about it, work it out, and come to a rational conclusion based on the evidence.

At one time women were considered to be property over most of the world. Apparently that definition of good is ok with you?

Are you just trolling now.

Women fought and continue to fight for equality.

No it's not apparently ok with me women being treated as chattle is ok with me when so many great brave women gave up their lives in the fight for equality - women who opened the eyes of other women to not accept the male dominated condescention and patronization thrown at them and taught women they were not second class citizens or mens property. Women who inspired other women to stand up and say enough is enough!

Women weren't given their rights - women had to fight for them and wrest them from the hands of clinging males.

But hey, apparently that view was just fine with most Church groups throughout history, and still is in places - and who's the dominant sex in Church - that's right - men!

Sarah x

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by clem456

At one time women were considered to be property over most of the world. Apparently that definition of good is ok with you?

Indeed. And it is thanks to the Christian ethos that this paradigm has changed.

It is interesting to note that Christianity had so many female converts in its earliest centuries. Some anti-Christian writers from the early years of the Church used to put down Christianity by reminding their readers about how the Christian Church was so full of poor people and women.

I think that speaks to the dignity that Jesus gave to those who were on the margins of society at that time - namely the poor and women—Bryan Jones, faculty, Kenrick Seminary, Paul VI class

[dcingoranelli]

This topic, and the posts on it so far, illustrate the pros and the cons of this site. On the plus side, there are numerous individuals with a passionate belief about the issue and some interesting and good posts. On the other hand, all of us so far appear to be lay people, so these posts simply are opinions, some of which may be close to correct in terms of church teaching, and some of which would likely be way out there. Consequently, unless someone with apologetics training and a great knowledge of RC theology is opining on the matter, the person who asked the question still isn't going to get a definitive response. Just my two-bits--I could be wrong and often am...

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

Of course we're not.

Is the essential human nature of a new born baby evil?

Is the essential human nature of a person born with profound mental retardation evil?

Their human nature is the same as our human nature.

Many factors in our life can conspire to make us perform evil acts, but we are not evil by nature.

Sarah x

An excellent response and one the Pope would approve of ( not that you would relish that).

I'm not going to pick at your comments in the posts below but you do jump to conclusions when speaking of the actions of God. Just an example, God did object and strongly to the extremely bad behavior of his people in the O.T. and He punished them for it and when they rejected his Son he destroyed Jerusalem ( 70 a.d by the Romans).

[HisIsTheCrown]

Originally Posted by dcingoranelli

This topic, and the posts on it so far, illustrate the pros and the cons of this site. On the plus side, there are numerous individuals with a passionate belief about the issue and some interesting and good posts. On the other hand, all of us so far appear to be lay people, so these posts simply are opinions, some of which may be close to correct in terms of church teaching, and some of which would likely be way out there. Consequently, unless someone with apologetics training and a great knowledge of RC theology is opining on the matter, the person who asked the question still isn't going to get a definitive response. Just my two-bits--I could be wrong and often am...

You are good, I tell you. It was not the Pope who wrote the Bible, but lay people.
These questions: origin of life, origin of man, sin, evil, suffering and death will remain clouded in mystery till the end of times.
Even Jesus Christ did not say why was He suffering in the cross, but to fulfill the Father's wishes and to the salvation of Humanity. It is not enough for our curiosity.
Now, where does the evil come from, how is it that man is born evil (though good too for created by God), the original sin this tendency of man for the evil, is a deep and profound mystery.
Even the Popes kneel before this mystery and ask us to accept God's will, no matter our understanding of things.
Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd

An excellent response and one the Pope would approve of ( not that you would relish that).

I have no problem with the Pope agreeing with me


you do jump to conclusions when speaking of the actions of God. [/quote]

One of the issues for me is some Catholics I've spoken with believe the events of the Bible are real. They then have to provide an explanation of the actions of God that would be viewed with suspicion.

It generally comes down to God can do what He wants because He is God and can't do anything bad so if it looks bad to us, then we're just to dumb to know God's ways. Or some greater moral good was accomplished by the wiping out of a tribe - an argument the Catholic Church itself would condemn today since an evil can not be justified by claiming it was for a greater good. Or who are you to quesiton God?

Those who say it's not literal but stories, I can understand a little better. But the jumping to conclusions is just indicitive of where my understanding is at, at the time - but it is difficult trying to get your head around the events of the OT when so many conflicting and contradictory views exist.

Sarah x

[fhansen]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I have no problem with the Pope agreeing with me



One of the issues for me is some Catholics I've spoken with believe the events of the Bible are real. They then have to provide an explanation of the actions of God that would be viewed with suspicion.

It generally comes down to God can do what He wants because He is God and can't do anything bad so if it looks bad to us, then we're just to dumb to know God's ways. Or some greater moral good was accomplished by the wiping out of a tribe - an argument the Catholic Church itself would condemn today since an evil can not be justified by claiming it was for a greater good. Or who are you to quesiton God?

Those who say it's not literal but stories, I can understand a little better. But the jumping to conclusions is just indicitive of where my understanding is at, at the time - but it is difficult trying to get your head around the events of the OT when so many conflicting and contradictory views exist.

Sarah x

The Christian concept of the nature of God, as it was revealed in the person of JC, is that He’s patient, kind, true, trustworthy- even humble -IOW that God is love, and that love is therefore definitively revealed to be the highest good, foundational in some manner to this universe, and any behavior that’s inconsistent with love is less than the good it could and should otherwise be.

This has nothing to do with notions of good, more or less contrived, that come from trying to shoehorn ones' personal opinions of good into alignment with theories of evolution and how natural selection may or may not have chosen certain behavior as beneficial for the species vs other behavior - because using this method one could simultaneously make a plausible case for both genocide and altruism as being beneficial for the human species- and the concept of good is then rendered totally subjective and relative … with the result that morality likewise becomes relative.

[HisIsTheCrown]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I have no problem with the Pope agreeing with me


you do jump to conclusions when speaking of the actions of God.

One of the issues for me is some Catholics I've spoken with believe the events of the Bible are real. They then have to provide an explanation of the actions of God that would be viewed with suspicion.

It generally comes down to God can do what He wants because He is God and can't do anything bad so if it looks bad to us, then we're just to dumb to know God's ways. Or some greater moral good was accomplished by the wiping out of a tribe - an argument the Catholic Church itself would condemn today since an evil can not be justified by claiming it was for a greater good. Or who are you to quesiton God?

Those who say it's not literal but stories, I can understand a little better. But the jumping to conclusions is just indicitive of where my understanding is at, at the time - but it is difficult trying to get your head around the events of the OT when so many conflicting and contradictory views exist.

Sarah x [/quote]


Excellent move !

I have no problem with the Pope agreeing with me

You are in the way, I think half way through !!! Now it only remains the parts where the Pope does not agree with you... You are close !!!


I think you have very few questions to put to the Bible. I could put 1000 questions more. Look, the Bible has got 72 books, written within a spam maybe of 4000 years. How can we dare to wish to understand it all ? There are scholars who spend an entire life studying one book and cannot understand all the details ! We do not need to !
Maybe you never read the entire Bible. I did ! There are passages which are hilarious, vicious, almost pornographic, misleading, in all, the Bible shows life as it is and how God showed Mankind the way to salvation.
You will find there crazy passages, like when David is dying and telling his son to kill the enemies he did not kill and finish the job. But this was 2500 years ago !
Now, there are historical passages: most of Jesus Life is true.

[Linusthe2nd]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I have no problem with the Pope agreeing with me


you do jump to conclusions when speaking of the actions of God.

One of the issues for me is some Catholics I've spoken with believe the events of the Bible are real. They then have to provide an explanation of the actions of God that would be viewed with suspicion.

It generally comes down to God can do what He wants because He is God and can't do anything bad so if it looks bad to us, then we're just to dumb to know God's ways. Or some greater moral good was accomplished by the wiping out of a tribe - an argument the Catholic Church itself would condemn today since an evil can not be justified by claiming it was for a greater good. Or who are you to quesiton God?

Those who say it's not literal but stories, I can understand a little better. But the jumping to conclusions is just indicitive of where my understanding is at, at the time - but it is difficult trying to get your head around the events of the OT when so many conflicting and contradictory views exist.

Sarah x [/quote]

Most Catholics, including myself, are not experts on interpreting the meaning of the Scriptures, so don't expect a valid explanation on troublesome points from us/them. For us the Scriptures are ultimately understood only through the teaching of the Church, that is through the Magisterium of the Church. The best, immediate source for this is the Catichism of the Catholic Church.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM The Catechism is not however centered on Biblical interpretation, it is centered on the truths and knowledge necessary for salvation. One can come to an understanding of some passages from http://www.bibliaclerus.org/.

On the point you mentioned, the Catechism discusses " structures of sin " which may help you understand God's actions in some circumstances. In O.T. times, God especially called a people to be a holy people and to carry his teachings to all other people. When these people failed in manifest ways, ways where in the whole population had become infected with sin and error ( a " structure " of sin passed from one to the other - father to son, mother to daughter, etc so that the whole community more or less was infected) he punished them. He had also instructed his people to act in his name when other tribes had become so infected with " structures of sin." In modern times it is difficult to know when God is acting in this way because he has not let us know speciffically why something bad is happening. I personally think he expects us to use our noodles. Though there seems to be little doubt that the wars we have had in the last century and before up to the present day are examples of this type. Of course in wars, the innocent will suffer too but the innocent have always suffer and we know that God has made provision in their behalf. Now there is no question that some suffer horribly, that is a sign that God is calling them to a high degree of holiness, to be be a sign of contrdiction, to be a living sign of the Cross his Son bore for us all. I know that may be getting a bit smaltzy for you but it is the truth. All of us suffer, we are to carry our crosses in union with the cross of his Son and offer it as a sacrefice for the conversion of others.