Hi all

Yabby (post 12:40:21 PM 26/2/06)

Comments to MJ:
I (LAB) wasn't a Christian for most of my life, but I was always opposed to murder & unnecessary killing. When a vehement Atheist I was still opposed to abortion - so my thinking isn't related to my religious beliefs.

As to "power conferred": I'd much prefer Christian-based ethos than the Humanist perspective towards morality & ethics. With Christianity there's consistency - read Commandments #s 5 to 10 (ignoring the godly aspects of 1-4).

Regards the Catholic Church: many of its doctrines & some of its dogma is very sound. That doesn't mean that the Pope is perfect or Catholics are inerrant. Far from it. Scripture says clearly: "All man(kind) hath sinned & falls short of the glory of God (Yahweh)." The Pope too has made mistakes. That's exemplified at the local parish - historically many priest have been appalling examples of their faith. But Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, Communists etc are no better.

Democracy itself has its own inherent 'problems' - the least of which most certainly isn't its differing views & opinions. Not everyone can be right!

Comment to ALB:
I gather that you meant LAB?! .. Moi!

There most certainly is "objective morality". Our State & Federal laws say that it is illegal to murder. That premise is based upon the Judeo-Christian principle of Exodus 20:13, & were manifest into current law through the unwritten British "Common Law", the Magna Carta, & the Australian Constitution.

A great quote by Merc PEARSE, says (sarcastically): "The only things that are invulnerable are those things that never claimed objective value, such as entertainment & fashion, which are taken with unprecedented seriousness & are at the heart of the infantilisation of the Western culture."

If you don't believe that there are (& should be) absolutes, then give me your address & I'll arrange for Ivan MILAT to pay you & your family a visit. That's relativism (subjective thinking).

As to abortion: it is still murder - no matter how we attempt to "sugar coat" it with 'justifications'.
(26/2/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Yabby (post 11:20:33 PM 26/2/06)

Your comment: "Morality is subjective .. our ability to reason and decide." That's precisely the 'problem'. Bilal SKAF can't see that what he did was wrong - pack raping two women. His ability to reason gives him very markedly dissimilar moral values to mine.

If morality is objective, then hopefully the decision will be that all rape is immoral. If society condones conditional allowances for rape, then that society hovers near self-destruction.

So should it be for murder. All murder ought to be wrong. But murder is not the same as killing. Murder requires a degree of pre-planning. To kill an invader who seeks to rape &/or kill one's children, wife or loved ones is not murder. That is why a modern-thinking judicial system punishes (if at all) the latter less severely.

Abortion is pre-planned killing - murder (of the foetus).

There are few "objective-thinking" humans, & that's why mankind is in such turmoil. Other beings only act on instinct. Humans portray the same bestiality when they copy animals.
(27/2/06)

Meg1 (post 1:40:38 AM 27/2/06)

Humanists don't respect the Holy Bible - you should know that. How do I specifically know that? I was a Humanist - until my life spiralled out of control & I realised that there were some things over which mankind had little/no control (despite his efforts).

I could have suicided - a common Humanist solution to unresolved/unresolvable failure - but instead God reached out to me with very clear messages.

Unlike my friend Brig-Gen Peter McINNES (Ret.) who was Peter COSGROVE's 2-I/C in Vietnam I took a different course in life. He suicided.

My anti-abortion stance (since Humanism) is now stronger. Murder is murder. Killing is not murder. My first wife suicided - PND. My mum was murdered, & I've killed other humans. That's why I understand the difference(s). Abortion is murder.

Baruch ha-ba ba Shem Adonai.
(27/2/06)

Cheers all

LAB, your belief "Murder is murder. Killing is not murder. My first wife suicided - PND. My mum was murdered, & I've killed other humans. That's why I understand the difference(s). Abortion is murder" is your belief and your understanding of the differences. That does not make it an absolute. It makes is your subjective truth. In anycase the Macquarie Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being by an act done with intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm". So therefore murder is killing if one wants to be pedantic. So call abortion either if that is your belief, but logically to call it murder is absurd, given that murder constitutes an illegal killing. I suspect the humans you have killed where in some line of duty and also 'legal killings', therefore you are not prepared to call them murder. Objective morality? It all depends on what you believe to be true. If objective morality is based on a truth that is a subjective truth then so will be the resultant morality.

”Umm MJ, I think you must be having a bad hairday lol.”

I thought that when we agreed I’d be happy. So much for that thought. Why I would jump to the conclusion (without checking the name) that someone badmouthing Catholics was Col is anyone’s guess.

” I consider any organisation which dictates unwavering obedience to a set of repressive demands, policed and managed by theological control freaks, as an unhealthy and negative human experience…”

Me too. I’ll stick to one with loving guidance managed by people who give up all ultimate control to the Almighty and take their position in the hierarchy out of duty and love.

”…paedophile priests…”

I reiterate my above extensive comments on this media sensationalism.

”“… sheep”
Interesting choice of words.”

It crossed my mind you would like it. They are Jesus’ words. Our creator believes that we need guidance.

” the ones that can actually think got themselves are going to be, obviously, up against it.”

A lot of thought is possible within the ambit of accepting legitimate authority.

” I have the common right of any person to criticise … an organisation which protects the vile and its material resources at the expense of the innocent for whom it held a “duty of care”. “

Are you a newspaper reporter?

”I will criticise every and any organisation which deals in duplicity. “
Fine but the good intentions of the Catholic Church clearly take it outside any legitimate description of dealing in duplicity. So why criticise that organization?

” Just punch “Roman Catholic Corruption” into google, you will get a 1,790,000 hits”

No need to teach me that you are not the only one who hates Catholics. I learned that quite thoroughly when Yabby replied to my previous post.

” That doesn't mean that the Pope is perfect or Catholics are inerrant.”

Of course not. If Catholics could be perfect there would be no such thing as confession. My comments respond to Col’s (and others who I thought were him) who goes a little bit more extreme than just saying Catholics aren’t perfect.

ALB, you are free to use melodramatic language, if that keeps you occupied, that does not mean that its accurate.

A friend of mine talks of murdering flies, another of murdering her sheep for meat. You talk of murdering organisms. In the correct sense the term murder usually applies to people and a group of dividing cells is not a person. But you are free to go and murder some flies if you want to and feel bad about it...

Secondly morality is not objective because you deem it to be so.
What we can show is that morality is grounded in biology, for some very good reasons. But its still subjective. If you have any evidence to prove your grounds for claiming such a thing as objective morality, I would love to hear them.

ALB, reality does not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would. Do not forget that :)

Mjpb

“paedophile priests…” media sensationalism”
Like an Iceberg, the truth is often hidden and the RCC have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide it – so what we see is far from “sensationalism” but merely the tip of a deeper corruption which is ingrained and entrenched in the fabric of the offices of the church.

“accepting legitimate authority.”
Now who gave the RCC “authority” – no one! (unless you are claiming something which was drawn up with Queen Isobella of Spain).

“Are you a newspaper reporter?”
Would it help if I were?

“you are not the only one who hates Catholics.”

Oh, I do not hate Catholics. As I said previously, either here or on another thread, I had a relationship with a wonderful lady who was “Catholic” and still regard her with great respect and affection.

But it is a good ploy of yours. Claim I hate Catholics, get the “numbers”, the congregants, behind you. Claim I hate them. I guess you are a priest, hence the appeasement and attempt to sweep the corruption away with words like “media sensationalism”.

Well, I do not hate priests either, I would never trust one but “treating with a healthy scepticism” is entirely different to “hating”

I do feel sad for people who have, literally, “put their faith” in an organisation which is a cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption.

I never claimed anyone was perfect, please do not put words in my mouth. I have claimed only that the Roman Catholic Church has no authority over those people who have greater sense than to follow its demands. The RCC has no authority to interfere in their lives and no authority to intercede in choices on abortion.

So “butt out brother” (– oh that would be a good Tshirt or badge logo for pro-choice”)

Catholics can practice “pro-life” but when the come to preach it to the rest of us, expect to get a response from those of us who reserve our right of reply, instead of following the Catholic herd, like dumb sheep.