(June 19, 2015 at 5:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Oh I know, I know.....Randy, it's my poor understanding of god that leads me to be confused regarding whether or not it's kosher to off some guy because he didn't want to seal the deal with his brothers wife.  The answer is so plainly obvious... that god is good -especially- when he's smiting the shit out of folks like Onan.  You know what though....you don't actually need to tell me any of this..I have the same understanding of the story as you do.  It's your Girl, Catholic.....who you need to correct on this count.  

What do you expect, btw>?  God didn't write any of his morality on my heart, as I'm not a descendant of Adam....like I keep telling you.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:05 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Then your god is described as an immoral being, and a foundational aspect of -your churches- moral condemnation of the acts of others in the here and now is -predicate- on the morality of an an immoral act, or an immoral description...of your god.

That is, of course, when it's not busy being predicate on transparently shitty non-reason like "natural law".

Not an opinion....a fact.

-and, if it's not okay to be put to death for any reason....as you've just stated....then why has your "good" god condemned every human being to death by means of a generational curse, or by means of the flawed design of man as expressed in his fallen nature?  Or is that allegory too?  If it is allegory, and if there is no reason that it';s okay for a person to be put to death...then what was the purpose, and what is the moral status, of christs crucifixion as vicarious redemption?  Relief from a punishment that should have never been inflicted in the first place...by way of scapegoating?

Some "good" god you've got yourself.  Some morality.

He's God. You're not. He will not contend with you forever.

There is nothing immoral about God's actions in the OT. Israel was an obstinate, stubborn nation...prone to being influenced by the pagan nations all around them. God took a tough-love approach...He commanded death for those who disobeyed. It took awhile, but eventually Israel got the message.

Jesus was able to speak more about God's love because Israel had finally reached the point where it was faithful to God...but in other ways, he dialed it up a notch in the "You have heard it said...but I say to you..." passages of the NT.

And what do you know of God's vicarious redemption beyond the use of what are, for you, mere talking points...buzz words gleaned from an atheist website? God took upon Himself the punishment that you deserve.

Why do you have a problem with the mercy that God has shown to all mankind?

(June 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: He's God. We're not. Some people have a harder time with that than others.

Do you actually believe you're leaving an impression?

I mean, I could just as well say, he's Bigfoot, we're not for all the "evidence" you're presenting. You're packing bible quotes as if there was not tommorow, but as far as we are concerned, you're firing blanks.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 1:54 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm sorry, but the Church isn't forcing people to do anything. Of course, if we believe there is a moral way of doing something, we want people to follow it because we believe it's best for them. But at the end of the day it is their choice, as it should be.

Of course it isn't. It doesn't have to. It's enough that it indoctrinates generation after generation of children, who force their kids to go through the same.

Sects don't force people to do anything. At the end if the day, it's their choice to follow.

Emotional blackmail, threatening with eternal pain and controlling people's sexual urges is what's best for them? Lying about things you cannot possibly know for your personal gain is best for people?

Maybe it works out for some.

It infuriates me how you fail to see how harmful your church's doctrine is. Maybe it's my personal bias, right.

But since you're a moral objectivist, is threatening with torture moral?

How does any of this apply to adult converts to the Christian faith?

And would it be reasonable to assume that you will raise your children to believe that there is no god? Because you believe that to be true?

But that's NOT harmful, is it? Because you believe it...

(June 19, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: How does any of this apply to adult converts to the Christian faith?

Um, I don't know, what the fuck do they have to do with it all of the sudden?

(June 19, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And would it be reasonable to assume that you will raise your children to believe that there is no god? Because you believe that to be true?

Thanks to your church, I won't fucking have children, Randy.

Quote:But that's NOT harmful, is it? Because you believe it...

You disingenuous asshole. It's not the belief in god that is harmful, and you know that.

(June 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Um, I don't know, what the fuck do they have to do with it all of the sudden?

A good guess would be nothing. But don't mind him. He's obviously throwing a verbal tantrum of some sorts.

(June 19, 2015 at 2:18 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I don't think I have. Reread my post, quoted above. The one where you conveniently edited out the word that makes all the difference. The "idea" that it would be okay for Onan to be put to death by your god has real meaning in that society, regardless of what you are willing to admit. If your god thought this would be a good way to communicate to that society, you need to come up with what has changed from then until now that has nothing to do with society's mores.  

ETA: The bolded is a pretty damning statement to your arguments... you should really consider the impact of that statement in light of your idea that morality hasn't changed.

First, the morality of societies do change. Objective moral truth does not.

Second, Onan disobeyed God and it cost him his life. However, it may have saved many in Israel from future disobedience. If it bothers you that God may have made an example of Onan, that's simply too bad. God was in the process of forming a people, and He was not particularly tolerant in the process.

Well...upon reflection, it might be more accurate to say that after the fall, after the flood, after Sodom and Gomorrah, after the infidelities of Israel with other Gods and after the rejection of Jesus by the Jews...God has been VERY tolerant.

But if He has occasionally put an obstinate sinner to death, then it was well within His authority to do so as God and for the benefit of others that the bad influence was removed from their midst before he was able to lead others into the same sins.

Quote:I feel like this needs to be addressed. These people are going to a place that is being ravaged by AIDS, and telling them that condoms are evil, and that they will go to hell for using them. Condoms aren't only for contraception. They are also fantastically effective at preventing the spread of venereal disease. To call them evil in a place that desperately needs them is, in itself, abominable.

In the context of this discussion, if you don't want to die of AIDS or catch a disease, then don't have sex with people to whom you are not married.

Is this really so difficult?

(June 19, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Onan spilled his seed because he did not want to give his child to his dead brother Er.  God was displeased and killed Onan.  Now, we know for certain that avoiding his duty to give a child to his brother was displeasing to god, because it was a violation of the law.  How do you get from there to declaring the method by which he broke the law to be bad under all circumstances.  If that were the case, you'd expect there to be a law in Deuteronomy prohibiting birth control. 

One might argue that God was simply angry with Onan for failing to honor a commandment to produce a child with his dead brother’s wife. But if you look at Deuteronomy 25:9-10, it is clear that the penalty for this failure is public humiliation, not death (the widow “shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, and pull his sandal off his foot, and spit in his face; . . . And the name of his house shall be called in Israel, the house of him that had his sandal pulled off”).

But that's not what happened. Onan’s actions evoked a much more serious response from God, and early Jewish and Christian commentators believed that by spilling his semen Onan had violated God’s natural law, the design he built into the human race, which led them to condemn the practice of birth control as being against God’s law.

I know the church teaches that.  It's the standard Catholic defense.  But there are two problems with it.  First discharge of semen outside a vagina is discussed as unclean in Leviticus 15.  The penalty is not death but two turtle doves.  It's considered unclean not a crime.  It's treated as ritual impurity like menstruation which is discussed immediately afterwords.  So spilling seed is discussed as an impurity in Leviticus but no where in the law of Deuteronomy. If it were a major crime that would be very odd.

Quote: If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water, and be unclean until the evening. 17 Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the evening. 18 If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.

Levitiicus 15:15-18

Second, Onan didn't just violate the Leverite marriage obligations he did so after being asked to do so by his father.
Most of what the Catholic church relies on for prohibiting birth control is it's own idea of natural law. 

The Hebrews may have thought differently.  Just for fun read through The Song of Solomon.  Much of the gifts he offers his lover were used in ancient times as birth control, specifically:  pomegranates, wine, myrrh, spikenard and cinnamon.  Somehow I don't think that was an accident.

(June 19, 2015 at 5:46 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Um, I don't know, what the fuck do they have to do with it all of the sudden?

A good guess would be nothing. But don't mind him. He's obviously throwing a verbal tantrum of some sorts.

Yea, sure looks so, what with him responding to random posts from x hours ago and ignoring the replies.....just another day in Randytown