Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT "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."

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."


There are so many more examples of how sick and twisted god's stance is on rape.

(June 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: if you were a woman living in a primitive region of the world 4,000 years ago, I'm pretty damn sure you would have considered yourself VERY FORTUNATE to have fallen into the hands of the Israelite army rather than those of the Canaanites.

LOL... they, most likely, both did the same thing!

(June 23, 2015 at 5:40 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm)pocaracas Wrote: God... if it exists... never had any saying in the matter.

But it could have. If it existed and if it went against it's grain.

The same god that clearly had no trouble with Hindu mythology, greek mythology, egyptian mythology, or babylonian mythology? (among others)
Why would the guy have any problem with jew mythology?

(June 23, 2015 at 5:50 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The same god that clearly had no trouble with Hindu mythology, greek mythology, egyptian mythology, or babylonian mythology? (among others)
Why would the guy have any problem with jew mythology?

Good question. Better ask Randy.

(June 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 5:28 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: No, poca; what you quoted was in response to Randy saying that his god doesn't condone rape, and that by saying he does, I'm lying.  It's a side conversation brought on by the objective/subjective morality debate.  As far as how that part of the debate is going, I agree with you.

When you say God condones rape, you lie.

You lie.

I have shown you the verses from the law which show how the Israelite men were to treat the women with respect, to allow them to mourn for the loss of their fathers and brothers and that they were to MARRY these women, which in the eyes of God you may recall, makes them one flesh as man and wife.

Now, it was 4,000 years ago, times WERE different and God did move the Israelites from a position of being total barbarians to being a cultured civilized people...just in time for Jesus to be incarnate among them.

But that doesn't suit the narrative you want to believe.

So, YOU LIE by taking a few verses out of context while ignoring the others which I brought to your attention.

Oh, sure...easy for you to claim "rape" from the comfort of your modern American culture with all of its laws and protections for its weaker members (formed largely by Christians, btw)...but if you were a woman living in a primitive region of the world 4,000 years ago, I'm pretty damn sure you would have considered yourself VERY FORTUNATE to have fallen into the hands of the Israelite army rather than those of the Canaanites.

And why would you consider yourself blessed, becca? Because God did not and does not condone rape.

You haven't shown shit, Randy. You are the liar, and you're the one whose narrative it doesn't fit. I've shown that; your willful ignorance and apologetics don't change a thing.

Now, fuck off; you're a shitty person, and your god and church are equally as shitty. If you can't see that, there's no hope for you.

(June 23, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Orthodox, like the Protestant denominations, caved in to pressure from its membership. Why? No pope.

Hardly a cave Randy, the Orthodox Church accepted contraception long before Protestantism even existed as it did Triadist divorce (that is, the ability to divorce and remarry in the Orthodox Church up to three times). It's Catholics who did a u-turn there as I'm sure any one of Father Seraphim's excellent apologetic sites can explain to you.

Quote:Nor would it be necessary. What you fail to recognized apparently is that while the ECF's were thoroughly Catholic (and this is undeniable), they were not individually infallible. Consequently, when an ECF errs here and there, the Church was able to discern that error and choose the correct path.

A.K.A: "We're making this up as we're going along". Randy, I've already given you an example about Papal statements being cherrypicked (remember I used decrees that "for now and all time" Jews should be persecuted?) based upon sheer fancy and what suits the political climate of the day.
Yeesh if you want a prime example of that look no further than Pius XII who wouldn't condemn Nazism until Hitler had actually died."The Church" is "whoever in the college of Cardinals happens to be the most cunning or rich". Do I need to copy/paste the colorful history of curial intrigue, simony and the murders within? I'd have assumed as an apologist you are already aware of them.

Quote:Nice example. Aquinas may have been right! The damage done by Martin Luther, for example, has been incalculable.

But no, we don't slaughter heretics anymore. Lucky you.  

While I can't say I believe in his ideas I must say I personally very much admire Martin Luther, proof in point of the impact one man can make on history, seeing as he more or less single handedly demolished Catholicism for all time in the Northern Western world.
Alas...Take heed everyone, Randy's good Catholic morality shines through again. Aquinas is right, it's good to kill heretics.
May I ask since why it is so important to your Gods nature to have humans defend his honor you no longer do it?

Quote:Or that contraception would not be permitted by Paul VI. Yep. Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind...". Awesome authority that.

Oh I don't doubt that Randy, Pius IX and Pius XII both saw to the centeralization of Papal Power, that I don't doubt. What I do see however is that this power is a huge liability. Lets take Pius XII for instance, you recall how before his death he was planning to proclaim Mary "Medeatrix of All-Graces". Now for non-theologians here what this basically meant is that Mary would be ascribed divine powers of her own, she wouldn't be a goddness but she would have "an equal role to that of her son in the salvation plan for mankind". The only reason this didn't get pushed though is because Pius XII died before he managed it.

Now I know what Randy will say; "Proof of Papal Infalliability! God struck the heretic down!"....Well Randy, Achille Ratti (that's Pius XI) , Eugenio Pancelli's (Pius XII) predecessor was also preparing an encyclidical of his own, which he actually finished and was only prevented from being released to the world by his death. Do you know what it was? A full condemnation of Adolf Hitler and European Anti-Semitism.

Now, does God hate Jews so much he'd kill his Pope so that he couldn't prevent the Holocaust from happening? Please explain.

Quote:I'm sure some have felt that way. But the pope does have a lot of theological advisors.

Which as I've mentioned in the cases of Leo XIII, Pius XII and as well as in the cases of Paul VI, John Paul II and many others they don't listen to. Paul VI was warned by the curia and unanimously by his hand picked advisors that condemning artificial contraception would have "dire consequences" for Catholicism as well as his idea was based on faulty theology.
He ignored them, and pretty much destroyed Catholic observance in Europe and North America.

Quote:Sure. He is the the head of the Church established by God Himself.

Not even going there. You can't even get the Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East to agree with you on this one, you can't expect non-believers to take this seriously? There's just too much evidence against it.
Simplest briefest way I can put it....If the Pope was the big cheese right from the word go, how come all of the Early Church councils were conducted in Orthodox lands? Carthage, Nicea, Chalcedon...I don't see any Rome or Italian dioceses in there until considerably later, but I do so many historically powerful Orthodox bishophrics.

Quote:No, the Pope is LIMITED in what he can and cannot teach by doctrine that has already been established and by the Holy Spirit. So, the review of a pope comes from PAST popes, so to speak.

Which as I've demonstrated with the Jews he can ignore whenever he likes and just kick under the rug. "Oh, I was wrong, I guess that wasn't infallibly declared after all".

Quote:Where did you get your information?

Pope Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council in 680 for having, in a letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, smoothed over heretical teaching and failed to give a dogmatic decision.

Much money has been spent by various Protestant bodies in the attempt to find even one formal papal definition which has been proved wrong or to find where one pope, attempting to teach infallibly, contradicted another or an ecumenical council. The records have been diligently searched by brilliant minds. Nothing has been overlooked; not one minor detail has been ignored. The result has been the complete vindication of the Church and the pope.

Goodness, what a revisionist account of history. While it's a step up from Belloc or Chesterton (the usual Catholic Go to's) this really isn't the truth at all. Honorius was paid by the arian faction within the church to further their cause (so some nice simony in there too). May I suggest you don't look at right wing writers like Spencer and use more balanced accounts such as the very readable and multiple-viewpoint-sharing version of The Popes by Viscount John Julius Norwich?
He unlike Spencer actually knows what he's talking about, and is experienced in Vatican diplomatic matters himself.

I understand you need time to research some of your rebuttals Randy but you have skipped and avoided many of my points on this thread and others. I'm happy to wait, but it does give the impression I'm running rings around you.

(June 23, 2015 at 6:18 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 3:05 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Reprimanded?  Jeezus in a clamshell...

CL apparently feels that some of us, likely me, are being condescending, mean and rude.

I'm not going to apologize for finding forced marriages with children appalling. I don't know what rude or mean things I've said and personally, I find telling people that god has mercy for them pretty fucking condescending too.

This passive aggressive persecution complex is seriously getting on my nerves. I'm going to quit this thread before I lash out and say something I would regret.

This isn't about me being a Catholic with a "persecution complex". It's about me being a human with emotions. I am a pathetically sensitive person and can get my feelings hurt by the way people talk to me. Probably my fault for getting so emotionally involved. I'll try to keep a cooler head.

Again, rest assured this is has nothing to do with my belief in God and everything to do with the type of person that I am.

(I do find forced marriages with children appalling as well.)

(June 23, 2015 at 6:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This isn't about me being a Catholic with a "persecution complex". It's about me being a human with emotions. I am a pathetically sensitive person and can get my feelings hurt by the way people talk to me. Probably my fault for getting so emotionally involved. I'll try to keep a cooler head.

Again, rest assured this is has nothing to do with my belief in God and everything to do with the type of person that I am.

(I do find forced marriages with children appalling as well.)

Listen, Lady. I get when most of the guys on here see your portrait they get all white knight and soften up when talking to you. You've probably noticed Randy's getting a lot more curt and blunt responses than you are but I think if you really were reading what you're typing you'd understand why people are so offended. Some of the "morality" you and Randy have posted would get me prosecuted for sharing if I did it under any other banner but "religion".

Most of us don't though. We're not being rude just for giggles, but we're genuinely horrified by some of the sentiments you two are sharing. I know I am.

(June 23, 2015 at 3:32 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 3:17 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Ah, gotcha. That's why I asked. To clear up any misunderstanding.

I should have clarified. By self defense, I meant defense of yourself or another person. I have said this on other posts, but did not make the distinction on the particular post you were responding to. My fault.

So we've stretched the boundary a little more.

Would you regard a battlefield killing in wartime to be immoral? What if I were an artilleryman, lobbing shells in support of infantry defending our borders, but not in direct danger myself? I mean, I'm defending another person -- indeed, I'm helping to  defend an entire nation of people.  Is that moral, or immoral?

PT, if the war is in the realm of defense, then I would call this a justifiable war.  This can include a nation defending themselves, or a nation defending another people that are being killed. Personally, I think very few wars fall into this category.

As for the death penalty, yes, I am against it.

(June 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: When you say God condones rape, you lie.

You lie.

I have shown you the verses from the law which show how the Israelite men were to treat the women with respect, to allow them to mourn for the loss of their fathers and brothers and that they were to MARRY these women, which in the eyes of God you may recall, makes them one flesh as man and wife.

Now, it was 4,000 years ago, times WERE different and God did move the Israelites from a position of being total barbarians to being a cultured civilized people...just in time for Jesus to be incarnate among them.

But that doesn't suit the narrative you want to believe.

So, YOU LIE by taking a few verses out of context while ignoring the others which I brought to your attention.

Oh, sure...easy for you to claim "rape" from the comfort of your modern American culture with all of its laws and protections for its weaker members (formed largely by Christians, btw)...but if you were a woman living in a primitive region of the world 4,000 years ago, I'm pretty damn sure you would have considered yourself VERY FORTUNATE to have fallen into the hands of the Israelite army rather than those of the Canaanites.

And why would you consider yourself blessed, becca? Because God did not and does not condone rape.

Randy, no one is lying. The bible verse in question has been copied on this forum multiple times.

The Israelites destroyed a village and kept the young virgins. Many of these girls were probably just barely 13 or 14, maybe younger.  They probably saw their entire villages destroyed by the men that they were being told to marry.

If you are forced to marry someone who kills your family and have sex with that person, yes that is rape.

Why would the girls be upset that they remained with the Canaanites who were their family members?

Again, why can't American soldiers do this now? Why can't a young soldier see a pretty Afghan girl, kill her family and bring her home for his wife? He would be marrying her, after all.

I agree the times were different but your god is all powerful and all knowing. He is the one who came up with the rules in Deuteronomy. Sometimes Christians like to claim that certain stories are just reporting historical events without judgement. The problem is that in Deuteronomy is a book of god's own rules to the Hebrews.

This is a insanely, long thread.