(June 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Metis Wrote:

(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.

I am sorry that people are offended by my views on morality. Just so everyone is aware, the only reason I am posting my views on morality is because I am being asked to share my views on it. I think some people might be assuming that because I think a particular act is wrong, I then conclude that the people who do it are bad people. Or that I go around condemning people or preaching or trying to get them to follow my views. None of these is the case. I'm just a person answering questions that are being asked to me in regards to my opinions/beliefs. Not asking anyone to agree.

(June 23, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.

As I have already pointed out, God took the men where they were at and imposed on them a higher standard of behavior.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

God raised the bar; instead of merely raping and moving on, the men were required to marry the girls and care for them. I suspect that in more than a few instances, rapes did NOT occur because the men did not want to marry as the law required. Thus, God's law probably saved quite a few women from being raped.

However, the passage in Dt. 21 does not speak of rape as it might occur in a random act; instead, it reveals that some thought and consideration was required. Rather than raping the woman in the heat of the moment, the Hebrews were required to wait a month before MARRYING the women.

That's not exactly the kind of story we hear about on the nightly news, is it? No, most rape stories don't suggest that the woman was taken into the home of the man, cleaned up (yeah, head shaved to eliminate lice, etc), dressed in new clothes, given an opportunity to mourn loved ones lost in the battle, MARRIED, and then...what? Raped? Against their wills?s

Maybe. Or maybe the women appreciated how well they had been treated by their captor. It was a different age, life was brutish, and war was not pretty.

But have any of you bleeding hearts stopped to consider what would have happened to these girls if the men had NOT been required to marry them?

(June 23, 2015 at 6:24 pm)Nope Wrote: 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.

As usual, you are too kind in your comments.  Someone certainly is lying.  But I will pretend that the liar simply does not understand the word "rape":

Quote:rape 
verb
[WITH OBJECT]
1(Typically of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will:the woman was raped at knifepoint[NO OBJECT]: he pleaded not guilty to burglary with intent to rape

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

Notice, nothing in the definition makes any reference to the marital status of anyone, nor is it changed by marriage.  

That exactly describes what God of the Old Testament says is fine and dandy with virgin women captured in war, as long as one marries them.  To pretend otherwise is dishonest.

The contorted "reasoning" to try to make the Old Testament moral reminds me of a video:





What, you say?  A video of approximately 15 minutes?  Well, perhaps this will get you to watch it:  If you put it on full screen and watch it, for that amount of time, at least, you will not be reading the tortured "reasoning" of a certain liar here.

(June 23, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.

As I have already pointed out, God took the men where they were at and imposed on them a higher standard of behavior.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

God raised the bar; instead of merely raping and moving on, the men were required to marry the girls and care for them. I suspect that in more than a few instances, rapes did NOT occur because the men did not want to marry as the law required. Thus, God's law probably saved quite a few women from being raped.

However, the passage in Dt. 21 does not speak of rape as it might occur in a random act; instead, it reveals that some thought and consideration was required. Rather than raping the woman in the heat of the moment, the Hebrews were required to wait a month before MARRYING the women.

That's not exactly the kind of story we hear about on the nightly news, is it? No, most rape stories don't suggest that the woman was taken into the home of the man, cleaned up (yeah, head shaved to eliminate lice, etc), dressed in new clothes, given an opportunity to mourn loved ones lost in the battle, MARRIED, and then...what? Raped? Against their wills?s

Maybe. Or maybe the women appreciated how well they had been treated by their captor. It was a different age, life was brutish, and war was not pretty.

But have any of you bleeding hearts stopped to consider what would have happened to these girls if the men had NOT been required to marry them?

Your a disgusting pig!!!!! Forcing a woman to marry a man and have sex with him is rape. Your acting like the men are doing a favor for the women, you really think these women want to marry these men? Its bad enough having to go through a rape experience once let alone having to be a live in rape victim. If you really think slaughtering a womans family, kidnapping her, forcing her to be your wife and raping her is civilized then your a sick person.

(June 23, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But have any of you bleeding hearts stopped to consider what would have happened to these girls if the men had NOT been required to marry them?

Raped by somebody else?

But more to the point, your god was prone to leading his "chosen ones" into countless cities to rape, pillage and plunder.

THAT IS NOT GOOD!  No matter how you twist and turn and hold your breath 'til you turn blue, it is NOT good.  And you want to suggest that this where we should derive our morals?

No thank you.

And the women/girls would not even be in that predicament if it were not for that fucking evil Warlord in the first place!

Your god is NOT good!  Read the bible and show me all the 'evil' things that Satan did.  Are you sure that you are worshiping the right god? I mean, if you are going to worship some non-existent deity, should not it be the good one?

(June 23, 2015 at 6:31 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 6:23 pm)Metis Wrote: 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.

I am sorry that people are offended by my views on morality. Just so everyone is aware, the only reason I am posting my views on morality is because I am being asked to share my views on it. I think some people might be assuming that because I think a particular act is wrong, I then conclude that the people who do it are bad people. Or that I go around condemning people or preaching or trying to get them to follow my views. None of these is the case. I'm just a person answering questions that are being asked to me in regards to my opinions/beliefs. Not asking anyone to agree.

Well I have to say if that's the case I'm glad to hear it : Won't lie it's kind of a refreshing change from some of the believers I've spoken to before. Most of what you've said is fine, but usually anything involving the under 16's or rape is going to upset well...anyone.



Now...Randy. I've only got one point here I'd like to make. What would have happened if the rapists hadn't been made to marry their victims?

Here's an idea, what if they'd never been raped in the first place.

If I was waching a rape take place and didn't move to prevent it, I'd be sinning correct? Sin of Omission, sin of inaction, sin against chastity, sin by compliance; I'd be doing a few. Now, lets look at an all powerful figure who knew in advance the rape was going to take place and has more than enough power to prevent it.

Now it wasn't because he was shy he didn't intervene, at this time apparently he was very happy to smite people or part the waves of the red sea. How come nobody up there moved to help, if not the big guy himself one of the angels or the like?

(June 23, 2015 at 6:00 pm)Metis Wrote:

(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.

Nope. "Until about 1970, the Orthodox Church generally opposed the use of contraception." Wikipedia

And I've had the conversation with EO at CAF, so yeah, the EO finally gave in on contraception - but only very recently.

Now, I've read the rest of your post, but I'm not going to respond to each and every little point because of the amount of time it would take to refute it all. You may call it "running rings around me" if you like. It's just not how I want to spend the time that I have available.

You're just offering another version of "whack-a-mole" - played at a higher level because you've done some reading, obviously - but it's still the scatter shot type of anti-Catholic posting that enables you to assert a half a dozen points in a single post while chuckling to yourself because you know that a reasonable refutation of any one of them would require hours of work. (Interestingly, though, I notice the COMPLETE lack of references in your posts. You know that's not how the game is played. If you want to make a point, cite your source. I'm not saying you're making stuff up to impress the crowd, but I do like to fact-check occasionally. I'm sure you understand.)

All that said, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

I'm here primarily to discuss atheism with atheists and as a secondary concern to answer questions they may have about Catholicism. If you REALLY have issues with Catholics and you are as familiar with the material as you suggest, you know the forum you need to post them in.

You can bet that you will have your hands full there, my friend.

Finally, and just out of curiosity, what brings you to the forum? A former Calvinist who lost his faith? Maybe a seminarian who dropped out, perhaps? Or are you just a cradle non-believer who just couldn't help studying more history of the Catholic Church and the papacy than most people with absolutely no interest in God whatsoever would reasonably invest?

(June 23, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Metis Wrote: Now...Randy. I've only got one point here I'd like to make. What would have happened if the rapists hadn't been made to marry their victims?

Here's an idea, what if they'd never been raped in the first place.

If I was waching a rape take place and didn't move to prevent it, I'd be sinning correct? Sin of Omission, sin of inaction, sin against chastity, sin by compliance; I'd be doing a few. Now, lets look at an all powerful figure who knew in advance the rape was going to take place and has more than enough power to prevent it.

Now it wasn't because he was shy he didn't intervene, at this time apparently he was very happy to smite people or part the waves of the red sea. How come nobody up there moved to help, if not the big guy himself one of the angels or the like?

Or, I dunno, "thou shalt not rape"? God still could've still had an even ten commandments if he eliminated one of the four about worshipping him.

(June 23, 2015 at 6:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: But have any of you bleeding hearts stopped to consider what would have happened to these girls if the men had NOT been required to marry them?

Wouldn't god have taken care of them by some other means? Having little other choice than to accept your rapist's marriage offer sounds pretty awful. I think it would've been much better if god had simply warned them that if they attempted to force themselves on a woman, their penises would immediately shrivel up and fall off. This is definitely within god's power to do, and it would be a much better deterrent than forcing the attacker to own his victim for the rest of her decidedly miserable life.

(June 23, 2015 at 7:11 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nope. "Until about 1970, the Orthodox Church generally opposed the use of contraception." Wikipedia

And I've had the conversation with EO at CAF, so yeah, the EO finally gave in on contraception - but only very recently.

Half right, they said they accepted condoms and the pill recently but here is the rub, they never condemned it previously and older herbal forms of contraception such as spermicides had always been allowed. They just gave a thumbs up to the new technology which did the job far better.

Quote:Now, I've read the rest of your post, but I'm not going to respond to each and every little point because of the amount of time it would take to refute it all. You may call it "running rings around me" if you like. It's just not how I want to spend the time that I have available.

You're just offering another version of "whack-a-mole" - played at a higher level because you've done some reading, obviously - but it's still the scatter shot type of anti-Catholic posting that enables you to assert a half a dozen points in a single post while chuckling to yourself because you know that a reasonable refutation of any one of them would require hours of work. (Interestingly, though, I notice the COMPLETE lack of references in your posts. You know that's not how the game is played. If you want to make a point, cite your source. I'm not saying you're making stuff up to impress the crowd, but I do like to fact-check occasionally. I'm sure you understand.)

Ah, you'd like references? Forgive me, as an apologist I thought you'd be familar with the material (and would call me out if I made a mistake) and I have shared references and named encyclidicals by name and provided reference pages/numbers/verses for them. I wasn't aware you wished for direct links. That's fine, all of the Encyclidicals are available on the Vatican website and most of the Church Fathers are available too so that shan't be a problem from here on out.

If there are any you are struggling to locate from what I have posted please do post them, I'll be happy to point you to where I found them.

Quote:All that said, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

I'm here primarily to discuss atheism with atheists and as a secondary concern to answer questions they may have about Catholicism. If you REALLY have issues with Catholics and you are as familiar with the material as you suggest, you know the forum you need to post them in.

You can bet that you will have your hands full there, my friend.

Finally, and just out of curiosity, what brings you to the forum? A former Calvinist who lost his faith? Maybe a seminarian who dropped out, perhaps? Or are you just a cradle non-believer who just couldn't help studying more history of the Catholic Church and the papacy than most people with absolutely no interest in God whatsoever would reasonably invest?

I fear it's nothing quite so exciting, and I'm something of an aberration and the product of circumstance. I'm a cradle non-believer as you put it, but when it came time for me to choose my university and subject I was offered a scholarship to study Theology no less at a Liberal Protestant Seminary provided I was willing to do some work for them afterwards. Someone was willing to let me study all expenses paid? I practically bit their arm off.

I passed with flying colors, and I later applied to study M.A with an Orthodox institution which I graduated from as well. I come for much the same reasons the others here do, I seek fellow non-belivers to discuss a few subjects with from that perspective. The only difference is I'm very highly qualified in the rulebooks used by theists, particularly Anglican and Orthodox Christians.

I'm actually doing a second Theology based M.A now, although this time in Sunni Islamic Theology. It's not something I need for my job, although every qualification does increase my wages, just simple curiosity. I may not believe, but I am fascinated by what a powerful social control mechanism religion can be. I would have carried on to PhD level but sadly while I am permitted to study no university or seminary I have encountered yet will accept an atheist for a doctoral thesis on Theological matters and I'm too proud to lie to trick them into accepting me.

It's far more than most athiests invest, but most of us just dismiss religion as fairy tales. I personally would too if the world had ever been held thrall by retellings of Hansel and Grettel, but when a man like the Pope can hold a third of the worlds population under his thumb well....I'd like to know how he did it