HRG

That's would be the prima facie conclusion, wouldn't it? Especially since there seems to be no objective procedure to validate a morality; thus it is ill-defined what "valid" means for a morality.
Your analogy is begging the question, because it assumes that there is a home in the first place.

Regards, HRG.

Avatar

Ever read 1984, Albert? The Inquisition "inquired" into people's personal beliefs and businesses, and got very enthusiastic about "correcting" those they found wanting. Oddly convienent that the Inquisitor's fees were paid by the properties of their victims...

Of course we know it...but that in no way excuses the excesses of the Catholic Church during the Inquisition, not its highly corrupt activities during the Dark Ages.

If we were arguing with a Protestant who claimed absolute authority of morality, I'd be hitting him about the head with the witch hunts and worse.

That is where you are wrong...both the ugly and the sublime are interesting. The lessons to be learned from both are invaluable for "shedding light on reality". I suspect that the only incedents you pay attention to are the ones that validate your religion. My view is quite a bit wider.

My morality is based on my conscience and the needs and morals of my community, instilled in me both by my family and my friends...and in some cases, even a few of my enemies.

John A. Broussard

I'm truly amazed at this argument. Are you saying that Catholic "questioning" which involved "torturing and executing" is justified because Protestant atrocities were worse?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, so this needs a bit of clarification. Please explain, and then we go can back to the basis of morals.

Chili

No John, here is how I see it. The Inquisitor is the judge over matters pertaining to the faith of the flock who's job it was to identify spiritually fornicated believers that would scatter the flock. These were the "wolves in sheep's clothing" (called "born again believers" today) who were eager, willing and able to lead innocent believers astray and into their promise of eternal life with a home spun recipe that never went beyond just a promise of eternal life.

They are easily identified and act much like 'sweet-asses' in a pen of cattle that will ride each other to death (if you know what I mean here). The torture and subsequent execution was done in effort to help them change their behavior so they could remain part of the flock -- either that, or just live with their own perversion without marauding the flock. So really, one must sympathize with the Church for having to take their own members to such extreme penance to change their view on life. In the end it really is just their way of measuring the stronghold the fire of hell can have on heretics until they repent. Ie, they would sooner die (and not much has changed since).

Avatar

I can't believe it. You really believe that the raving fanatics that fueled the Inquisition were right? You really want to argue this?

This is what happens when Churches get to rewrite their own history.

The Inquisition was a violent power-and-money grab...plain and simple. The nonsense that you are posting here was the justification for gross abuses and murders of people whose only crime was that they did not measure up to what the Inquisitors thought they should behave like...not to mention the seizure of property from their victims. Need I mention that quite a few of the targets of the Inquisition were well-to-do Jews?

Albert Cipriani

Only the studiously blind can find no objectively valid means of determining morality. Subjectively, morality can be defined as sacrificing one’s self-interest for the interests of others or for something other. Objectively, morality can be defined as any act or thought that is more associative than disassociative.

That’s high level. Here’s low-level. Every three-year-old comprehends morality enough to register the injustice of having it’s toy taken away. Our sense of justice is innate. It needs to be refined, and it can be ill-informed. But the violation of our core sense of justice, our instinct for fair play, is the basis of all valid moralities. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

This is a tautology, for these are synonymous terms. To the degree you have formed your conscience, you have formed it morally.

This is just question begging. Your morals are based upon your community’s morals. Fine. Then what’s your community’s morals based on? Sounds like you’re just another moral floater going whichever way the currents flow. I detect no intellection in your approach… which resembles that of a barnacle attaching itself to a ship that someone else is steering. – Sincerely, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

John A. Broussard

I certainly agree with you on this point. However, how do we determine whether or not a given act is just?

E.g., "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? [...] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Would these be just actions?

Toto

This thread has lost whatever connection it had to BCH and seems more appropriate in MFP.

Chili

I am just telling you how I see it. The justification for this was Herod's massacre of all the boys under two that lingered close to Bethlehem where the spiritual orgy took place instead of returning to Egypt to evaluate their position. Don't forget here that King Herod reigned over Judaism only.But there is only one Church that made history.The Inquisition was against heretics that refused to play by the longstanding rules of the game and now you come along and say that their rules were wrong. Do you realize how insane that is?