If we are nothing more than a bunch of atoms bumping into one another, then what we do to one another is also nothing more than atoms bumping into other atoms. Human beings have value, because of who we are in God’s image.
My point is that if we are not created by God, but simply a result of particles evolving over time then we are more like jewelry, which are just shiny rocks.
It seems to me that you believe morality is a consensus. If the majority believe something to be true, then it is more likely to be true. Whereas I believe that truth is objective, in spite of how many individuals believe something to be true or not. If 99% of individuals believed something to be moral, it does not make it so. And maybe you agree.
The problem with The Golden Rule is that it is kind of subjective in of itself. Do unto others as you would want done unto you. It is by this rule that I tend to mind my own business and leave people alone when they are dealing with things. It is why I dislike that show, “What Would You Do,” where they put people in certain situations and then tell you that you are wrong for not intervening, when I don’t think it is any of my business to intervene. Apparently the producers of the show do believe it is more moral to intervene.
I once asked a moral relativist a question about a topic that I thought everyone agreed upon, namely that rąpe is evil. I used this extreme example, because I thought pretty much every human being agreed that this act against another human being is morally wrong. But, he argued that it depends on the circumstances. In some cases, rąpe is not only morally acceptable, but even good. He said that in the case that the human species was not procreating at a sustainable rate, then it is okay. I disagree. Even in these circumstances, it would be wrong to commit such an evil act.
You brought up the Society of Jesus (better known as The Jesuits). They have been known to teach a thing known as situational ethics, which is where you pit two immoral things to one another and force one to choose which is the right choice, based on the outcome of said choice. Don’t get me wrong, I find the thought experiment fun, like playing the “Trial by Trolley” board game, but it does not make a wrong choice right, but rather necessary.
If my family is starving and I go to a market and steal bread, it does not make my actions morally good. It simply makes my actions necessary. Does this make sense?
Yes, as any human organization does. Governments, government schools, corporations, etc. Anywhere you have fallen human nature, you have corruption. It also does not make it right.
Let me recommend a few boobs by Steve Weidenkopf. He gives context to some of these dark times in the Church’s History.
The Catholic Church did actually exonerate her through a retrial and has canonized her as a Saint. The Church ruled that the original trial was biased and did not follow proper procedure.
I don’t really know much about this. What I do know is that the Jesuits are sometimes referred to as “the Jews of the Catholic Church” (a derogatory term), which is ironic, since you claim that they are anti-Semitic. Rather than paint everyone of a particular order with a wide brush, I like to look at the behavior of individuals. Who authored the articles that you are offended by? Was this individual(s) anti-Semitic? Maybe so. The publication you are referring to was long before my lifetime, and I am not a fan of the Jesuits, so it is not a publication that I would read today. America Magazine is a Jesuit publication that I do not read today.
Same. You are in good company : )
No worries. You’ll get there. Did you know that there is a training you can take to better understand how to use this site?