(June 21, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:14 pm)Metis Wrote: That seems a very odd thing for a Catholic to say Catholic_Lady, whenever I have visited Catholic Forums they usually deny that slavery itself is immoral (if you go to more conservative ones or even SSPX they usually go further and say feudalism/serfdom/absolute monarchy are the only Godly Catholic forms of governance.

I don't see how the Catholic Church can say slavery is immoral, when the Synod of Gangra said anyone who called for the abolition of it was Anathema, several popes have owned slaves (Alexander VI actually granted permission to the Spanish to enslave the inhabitants of South America!) and in more recent times the Pope actually sided with the US confederacy, stating that anyone who thought slavery was immoral was against God. (If you look into the campaign against slavery you'll actually find it was led by protestants and one of it's greatest enemies was no other than the Catholic Church. Look at St Martin de Pores, who was basically made a saint for being a submissive slave and respectful to whitey!)

By all means I agree slavery is immoral, but for most of it's history (until the 1970's to be more precise) Catholicism has held that slavery is instituted by God and that some people are just better than others.

I am not part of the SSPX, and so I cannot speak on their behalf.

Oh I don't expect you to, but they do raise a perfectly valid point and critique the post Vatican-II church for not doing so.

Technically this is still perfectly valid history and previous stances on key issues of morality, so they've either changed what is moral and a sin OR the Catholic Church is still cool with slavery but just likes to keep it quiet.

Don't get me wrong I do think the SSPX are batty, but I do appreciate how truthful they are and how they aren't afraid to actually repeat what encyclicals say; even the really douchy stuff like "the state permitting freedom of religious observance is a sin". I don't see Francis coming out to call the Orthodox and Muslims infidels, but at least Pius IX had the balls to do so. In both counts however it is the teaching of the Catholic Church since the release of the Syllabus of Errors that all non Catholics do not have the freedom to practice their religion.

After all, that's why Salazar (the dictator of Portugal) banned all non Catholic forms of worship. By all means do check. In any case, we're either seeing a lot of deliberately misleading outsiders and Catholics by the Vatican or a huge u-turn on morality. I'm just curious which you think it is.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [

And I think it is fair to say that I have followed the rules since our first "interaction", becca.

Pocaracas gave me a warning, but he explained how to avoid it in the future, and I have been following his advice ever since.

CL IS a "kinder, gentler" apologist than I am, so I can see how people like her approach better.

But make no mistake, we're singing from the same hymnal.

Does it bother you that people are overall more polite to CL?

(June 21, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 11:40 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think. The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

But what if what we think is that the Church holds the answers? And that the Catechism can do a better job of putting it into words than we can? I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches. So I went ahead and linked to the catechism in order to prove that what I just said really is in line with Church teaching.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Nope Wrote: I'm confused, what does training people over a very long period of years have to do with the verses Jenny used? So, a Hebrew virgin that might be very young, is sold to a man by the person she probably trusted most, her dad. Her dad knows she will be raped and used for sex and yet he sells her anyway. Remember, bronze aged people were humans just like we are. The girl would have felt the betrayal and pain that any person would feel in such a situation. Her life meant nothing apparently to this god because he was using her suffering was being used to train some future group. Is that what you are saying, Randy?

I'm saying that God worked with the Hebrews based on what they could handle at the time...not based on what you think of it several thousand years later.

Things that WERE permitted at various times in the past are no longer permitted. God was more lenient with the Israelites early on than he was later.

Why not just make better Hebrews from the start? This idea that he had to train people by making them slaves and having them raped seems a little ridiculous when he could of just included it in his instruction manual, instead of having it say the opposite.

(June 21, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Right they are part of your Christian belief, you believe your morals come from god. My question was how do you know the morals your getting from god are good, it is impossible to judge the morality of god when you have no morality of your own.

It is part of the Christian belief to believe that God is goodness and love. So, I'd have to explain why I am Christian in the first place.

This is just my theory, but I think we all have it inside of us to instinctively know that things like love, generosity, honesty, chastity, temperance, etc... are objectively good things, and the acts that represent those things, are good acts. It doesn't mean we hold all the answers to morality, nor does it mean we can't be brainwashed into thinking killing infidels (for example) is good, but I do believe we do have a little piece of "God" inside us to help guide, as part of a human instinct.

(bold mine)

That's called serotonin.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:44 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:35 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: But what if what we think is that the Church holds the answers? And that the Catechism can do a better job of putting it into words than we can? I'd also like to point out that there have been times here where I've said something about what the Church teaches and have been told by another member that I am wrong about what the Church teaches. So I went ahead and linked to the catechism in order to prove that what I just said really is in line with Church teaching.

I am sorry you feel as though we have done a poor job of sharing our thoughts and beliefs. I'll own it and say that indeed I do have a hard time putting things into words a lot of times.

You guys seem to not grasp the difference between these two ideas.

This is okay:
C_L: "I believe x and y and z because this, that, and the other thing."

Atheist: "Well that's wrong, the church teaches b and c and d."

C_L: "Nuh uh. See this portion of the catechism:

Catechism Wrote:Snippet of the catechism or other document that supports your original point.

http://www.linktocatechismpage.com"

This isn't:
"This is what I believe:

Catechism Wrote:ten pages of Catechism.

"

Mike-

In my last post to you, I gave you a link to the "flow chart", remember? I didn't post a wall of text.

In other threads, I have started using the hide code, especially when re-presenting material already posted elsewhere.

Finally, there are times when 2-3 paragraphs of the Catechism or some article at Catholic Answers or even from Tim O'Neill would be the VERY BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER or response to your question or post. It advances the discussion...it does not curtail it.

I'm not sure why that bothers you guys here so much.

But my suspicion is that Min or Stimbo could post War and Peace if they chose to do so, and no one would bat an eye.

Capiche?

(June 21, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm)Nope Wrote: I'm confused, what does training people over a very long period of years have to do with the verses Jenny used? So, a Hebrew virgin that might be very young, is sold to a man by the person she probably trusted most, her dad. Her dad knows she will be raped and used for sex and yet he sells her anyway. Remember, bronze aged people were humans just like we are. The girl would have felt the betrayal and pain that any person would feel in such a situation. Her life meant nothing apparently to this god because he was using her suffering was being used to train some future group. Is that what you are saying, Randy?

I'm saying that God worked with the Hebrews based on what they could handle at the time...not based on what you think of it several thousand years later.

Things that WERE permitted at various times in the past are no longer permitted. God was more lenient with the Israelites early on than he was later.

Even rape, Randy? God said that Hebrew warriors should kill entire villages and keep the virginal girls for sex toys. I've quoted that verse about three times in this very, very long thread. Why would god not just permit these things from happening but condone them? What good came of raping young girls who might have seen their entire family murdered by the same men that used them for sex?

Quote:Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

This is from Deuteronomy, a book of god's laws.

(June 21, 2015 at 12:47 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Why is it that every time YOU fail to understand or agree with me, I'm being dishonest. Maybe you're just being stupid.

What I quoted from Jesus is an EXAMPLE of the way that He took something that WAS permitted in the OT (like divorce) and said, in effect, "Okay, this is no longer acceptable."

IOW, God turned the screws of the clamps a little tighter to bring His people more closely in line with His will.

Do you know what it means to train a vine? It requires patience and pruning; otherwise, the vine will break.

Ya its an example of what jesus said about divorce, but he didn't say anything about slavery! Your example is stupid! Then by your own logic jesus  must of been ok with slavery if he didnt change it. I don't care about training a vine, dumb analogies are not going convince me that enslaving people, killing people, torturing people and raining genocide on people was some great training tool to make people treat each other better, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

If I understood as you do, then I would agree. But...

(June 21, 2015 at 1:17 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 1:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: I'm saying that God worked with the Hebrews based on what they could handle at the time...not based on what you think of it several thousand years later.

Things that WERE permitted at various times in the past are no longer permitted. God was more lenient with the Israelites early on than he was later.

Why not just make better Hebrews from the start? This idea that he had to train people by making them slaves and having them raped seems a little ridiculous when he could of just included it in his instruction manual, instead of having it say the opposite.

He instructed the Hebrews not to mix different fibers, for goodness sakes. It seems like a small thing to add, "Oh by the way, don't rape women"

(June 21, 2015 at 1:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Right they are part of your Christian belief, you believe your morals come from god. My question was how do you know the morals your getting from god are good, it is impossible to judge the morality of god when you have no morality of your own.

It is part of the Christian belief to believe that God is goodness and love. So, I'd have to explain why I am Christian in the first place.

This is just my theory, but I think we all have it inside of us to instinctively know that things like love, generosity, honesty, chastity, temperance, etc... are objectively good things, and the acts that represent those things, are good acts. It doesn't mean we hold all the answers to morality, nor does it mean we can't be brainwashed into thinking killing infidels (for example) is good, but I do believe we do have a little piece of "God" inside us to help guide, as part of a human instinct.

So are you saying that humans can make moral choices without god?