(June 22, 2015 at 2:55 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: She could not fully consent. She was from 12 to 14 years old.

The age of consent in the good old USA was 7 (seven) in Delaware in 1895.  If Mary was 12 or 14 she would have been laid a thousand times at that age.

The Babylonian Talmud says that Bathsheba was 6 (six) when David knocked her up.  A girl 14 in the Middle East 2,000 years ago had a lot of miles on her.

(June 22, 2015 at 9:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 21, 2015 at 9:12 pm)Nope Wrote: Different people  wrote the bible. There was no god guiding the writings.

How would you go about proving that?

In the meantime:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

Historians generally agree that about 40 different people wrote the Bible.   We know King James had a committee to write his version.

(June 22, 2015 at 9:17 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Could God force us to do something? Sure.

But He has chosen to give us free will and to honor it.

How much resentment would we have against God if He didn't?

Hell pretty much negates the free will argument. If one's soul is held hostage, can any choice be free?

No. You may as well exonerate the bandit because his victim gave up his wallet ... never mind the gun barrel at his temple.

Free will! *snort*

(June 22, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 10:01 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I think capital punishment is immoral.

Many Catholics agree...because they believe that the taking and giving of life belongs to God alone.

Oh, right.  Nice objective morality you've got there.  

Quote:

Quote:Try verses:

Deut. 20:10-14 (command about attacking the town and taking women for themselves)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

If only you had read a little further, you would understand more. This is just ONE CHAPTER later:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The captured woman is allowed time to mourn. She is then MARRIED...not raped. Thus,

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED. TIME TO LET IT GO.

Oh, well thank goodness she's allowed forced to get married and shave her head for her rapist.  Oh, and a month; how generous.  I'm sure there's no more rape happening there either

Quote:

Quote:Deut. 22:23-24 (rules for stoning a rape victim to death)
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

Harsh, but the obvious issue here is that if the girl did not protest, then the sex may have been consensual. We see this in the headlines EVERY DAY. The cry of "rape" only occurs a few days later. Anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse team?

You know?  Fuck you, Randy.  Fuck you and the high horse you rode in on, you misogynist little boy.  You are morally repugnant.  How many "cries" of rape do you think are lies?  

That passage clearly implies rape and your god's consent of it.  Your special pleading/ confirmation bias/ mental gymnastics don't change that fact.

Quote:

Quote:Numbers 31:18 (what do you think keeping virgins for themselves entailed?)
"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Marrying them according to the law. See the passage quoted above.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN. TIME TO LET IT GO.

You have got to be kidding me.  Everything your apologetics are telling me is that you think women are less than men.  You are a misogynist of the first order if you think it is at all ok for a man to "keep [virgins] for themselves".

Quote:

Quote:Deut. 22:28-29 (rules about a rape victim being made to marry her rapist)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

The man was guilty of raping her, and he was required to pay restitution, to marry her and NEVER divorce her caring for her all the rest of his days.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED A THIRD TIME. TIME TO LET IT GO.

Right.  Because every rape victim wants to marry her rapist, and it's totally ok because the rapist made it up monetarily to daddy.  You are absolutely disgusting if you really believe all that, Randy. Actually, you're disgusting if you don't really believe it; just spouting it on the internet for the world to see is enough.

(June 22, 2015 at 9:19 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 2:34 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Unless she acted to save her child's life (which doesn't sound like it) I do not think it was a moral act.

Wow, I'm...


Not at all surprised, sadly.

She had to answer that way ... or sanction the battery of hundreds of Catholic priests. There really was no option.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:00 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Tell that to C_L; she thinks theft is an objective immorality.

"There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

With that being said, I was incorrect in failing to make this distinction on my response to your post. I stand corrected, and I apologize.

With every post you make in this thread, you're proving you don't actually believe in objective morality.

(June 23, 2015 at 1:19 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:04 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: "There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

With that being said, I was incorrect in failing to make this distinction on my response to your post. I stand corrected, and I apologize.

With every post you make in this thread, you're proving you don't actually believe in objective morality.

I don't think it's conducive to a good discussion to tell other people what they really believe. Just MHO.

I know Randy has done this and yall get really upset about it, so I think you can understand where I am coming from.

(June 22, 2015 at 9:42 pm)Catholic_L ady Wrote: I believe killing is only moral in self defense. I'm sorry if you find this sad.

Would you kill to defend your infant child? That is not self-defense. Is it moral, by your lights?

(June 23, 2015 at 1:23 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:19 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: With every post you make in this thread, you're proving you don't actually believe in objective morality.

I don't think it's conducive to a good discussion to tell other people what they really believe. Just MHO.

Oh, believe me; I get that, but I'm just going off your own posts in this thread that's about whether morality is objective or not, and with every single post you've made, it's quite clear you either don't understand what objective means, or you don't actually believe in it.

Quote:I know Randy has done this and yall get really upset about it, so I think you can understand where I am coming from.

But that's not what I was doing.  I'm simply telling you that you have the definition wrong.

(June 22, 2015 at 10:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 12:44 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Because you say so?  Because the Catholic church says so?  You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?

It is acceptable for a starving person to steal food, but not more than is necessary.

From the Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.191

Translation: We, the Church, think that the moral absolutism of the 7th commandment does not take into account the vicissitudes obtaining in the real world, so we see fit to alter the Word of God as follows:

********************

The requirement to interpret and interpolate Biblical verse renders any claim to moral objectivity laughably naive. The 40,000 sects of Christianity demonstrate this.