Hey guys, it's been fun. Thanks again for an enlightening morning.

I'm about to head out to hang with some girlfriends.

I hope everyone has a great day!

(June 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I honestly have no clue what you mean about editing out the word "idea" lol. I don't remember editing, but if I did it was to better explain what I meant.

Your paraphrase of me left out the word "idea," which was very important to my meaning. I wasn't saying that this event happened, I was saying that the idea of the event is important as it relates to the Bible as a moral document.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It would not be ok to kill Onan. Even if they thought it would be.

What I was saying was to consider the different way in which people wrote and talked back then. They wrote "God killed Onan." Does this mean God actually killed Onan? Does this mean that Onan even existed? In my opinion, no. This means that allegory was very popular back then and they were telling a parable to convey a particular message. That message being, it is immoral to behave in the way this character did. You have to put yourself back in their time to understand why they wrote things the way they did, and that's what I was telling Rhythm.

And what I am saying is that you cannot remove the way they wrote and talked completely from their morality. And, by context, the morality preached by the Bible, OT and NT. The cherry picking is seriously disconcerting.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It's also important to keep in mind that God did not write the OT. If He did, we would claim the bible and the OT as perfect, but we don't. We do not claim the bible as infallible. The bible is about God, but it is written through the filter of man.

It is not perfect. So to address your point, God did not necessarily think this was a good way to communicate with that society. He did not write it. That society thought this was a good way to communicate with that society. They were the ones who wrote it in accordance to their imperfect perception of God.

So when does this magically stop? Is the New Testament a good way to communicate with our society? Do you understand why using this argument to explain away the uncomfortable shit is dubious while accepting the stuff that you want to apply to contemporary life?

(June 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't understand why my bolded quote is so damaging. Can you clarify?

The idea that it's never okay to punish someone with death is in vehement disagreement with a lot of the book you hold so dear. And it flies in the face of the idea that morality doesn't shift.

The over arching point is that you are assuming that your current version of morality is perfect and complete. We have it now, whereas those people in the Bronze Ages and Middle Ages were just clueless fools just trying the best they could. But right now, in the modern world, we have morality figured out. And it won't change in the future.

I guarantee it will change. You brought up an interesting point, earlier. If some of the more terrible predictions of dystopia in the future come true, an entirely different moral landscape will emerge. We don't experience what that is right now, and a person born into that world with no outside perspective will be just as sure that they have it right as you and I are now. That doesn't make either of us right. It makes morality subjective.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Aroura Wrote: Did she just say threatening with torture is moral???

Yep. She did. The other half of my respect for her is down the toilet.

Sometimes people seem so nice.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Trust me, there are plenty of Catholics who do not follow some very fundamental Catholic laws about sexuality. The vast majority don't. I think if the Church was orchastrating massive brainwashing, more Catholics would follow their own laws. ;-)

That doesn't follow. You're essentially saying that if the catholic church was attempting to brainwash scores of people, then it would be good at it. Well, that's not automatically true, and in fact the failures of organized religion to live up to its own preachings are well recognized here on this board.

(June 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: - I'd say contraception is immoral because I believe it changes sex to purposely render it infertile, as I have explained in my previous posts.

Admittedly that only makes sense if people do not want to have a baby .. unless they also think that god expects us to enjoy sex as little as possible while always attempting to be fruitful.

(June 19, 2015 at 12:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Listen, I understand this makes very little sense to you all and doesn't hold much water at all unless you believe in God and believe that He had a special purpose for creating sex. I can't take God out of the picture here. I respect and understand you all's disagreement on this and would never judge anyone who felt differently.

Yep, At this point we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on sex, though l do see the appeal of holding back until being overwhelmed by pleasure. It has taken a while for me to get over the loss of sex being something naughty. Naughty sex was really, really good. But fortunately, in fantasy, I can still imagine myself succumbing to one or another taboo. Keeps it interesting.

In all seriousness, I have no problem with accepting this difference. You have a way of life that satisfies and makes sense to you. To each his own.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You have to put yourself back in their time to understand why they wrote things the way they did, and that's what I was telling Rhythm.  

That's understood. The book is nothing but a mirror of their society. But it goes to show that morals do change based on the society and the time in question. In our vast majority we don't take bronze age tribal standards as morals anymore. Some do, they're called literalists. But the same is true for the NT. If we would live by their standards, we would have a very different society and certainly not a better one.

(June 19, 2015 at 3:08 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Aroura Wrote: Did she just say threatening with torture is moral???

Yep. She did. The other half of my respect for her is down the toilet.

Sometimes people seem so nice.

There is no reason to be surprised.  She did tell everyone she is a Catholic, and even has it in her username to make it very hard to miss.  Hell is a part of Catholic doctrine.

(June 19, 2015 at 1:10 am)Neimenovic Wrote: I've never gotten an honest answer so far and I've asked almost all theists

CL, how does anyone know anything about god?

I know you directed this to CL, but I would like to answer, also.

Several ways:

1. The material world around us speaks of an intelligent designer.
2. Logic and reason about how all this came into being.
3. Revelation of God making things known to us that we could not know otherwise.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:43 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don;t think you can maintan that as a true statement.  I seem to recall a conversation you just had wherein it was made plainly obvious that the things your church -says- about jesus..even about -the things he is supposed to have said- takes precedence to anything you have that could even remotely be argued as access to jesus.  Wouldn't it be more truthful to say that you know god through the Church?

Why does it have to be either/or?

Some things we know from observing the creation around us, some from using our logic and reason, and some by revelation of God to His body (which is called the Church).

(June 19, 2015 at 3:32 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 3:26 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The reason why we believe sex should remain in its natural element is because it is such a sacred act.

... but why is sex a "sacred act"?

Through our sexuality, God allows us to participate in His creation of new life.