(June 23, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Metis Wrote:

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

Well for the record, I definitely don't think rape is moral. It is, in fact, one of the things I have listed as inherently immoral.

As for all the bible talk about rape, I will say that the Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, and Catholics are free to interpret them literally or allegorically. While I see them strictly as didactic fiction, Randy seems to have taken a more literal view. To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters. In the grand scheme of things, and as long as Randy and I both adhere to Church teaching, whether or not we interpret these stories in the same way, is just details.

(June 23, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters.

So, your god must then be immoral. That is acceptable. How does catholicism justify worshipping an immoral god?

(June 23, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Metis Wrote: 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.

Well for the record, I definitely don't think rape is moral. It is, in fact, one of the things I have listed as inherently immoral.

As for all the bible talk about rape, I will say that the Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, and Catholics are free to interpret them literally or allegorically. While I see them strictly as didactic fiction, Randy seems to have taken a more literal view. To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters. In the grand scheme of things, and as long as Randy and I both adhere to Church teaching, whether or not we interpret these stories in the same way, is just details.

Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it still in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

(June 23, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Metis Wrote:

(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.

Wow. That's twice that you indicated that I got at least part of my answer right. Do you have any idea how rare that experience has been for me in this forum? I'm almost at a loss for words. But maybe you're just being kind.

Quote:

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.

The encyclicals are obviously easy enough to locate. I just didn't realize you were quoting an encyclical when you asserted that Pius XII wouldn't condemn Hitler until after he had died.

Quote: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.

Is it your opinion that the non-believers here have anything like the formal training you have? If not, why bother? There are other venues where your intellect and education will be put to better tests.

Quote: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

If there is no God, then for what purpose does the pope need to control us? And if there is a God, again, for what purpose does the pope need to control us?

Finally, has your study focused primarily on the historical issues surrounding the Church? Or would you say you have a solid formation in scripture also?

(June 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well for the record, I definitely don't think rape is moral. It is, in fact, one of the things I have listed as inherently immoral.

As for all the bible talk about rape, I will say that the Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, and Catholics are free to interpret them literally or allegorically. While I see them strictly as didactic fiction, Randy seems to have taken a more literal view. To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters. In the grand scheme of things, and as long as Randy and I both adhere to Church teaching, whether or not we interpret these stories in the same way, is just details.

Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

It's true what she's saying though, I suspect Randy is a former Protestant as I can detect a strong American Evangelical vibe to much of his personal theology. It's not heretical but it's rather different from the more traditional, ethereal/indefinable approach of Catholic_Lady which is more usual amongst "Cradle Catholics".

(June 23, 2015 at 7:52 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters.

So, your god must then be immoral.  That is acceptable.  How does catholicism justify worshipping an immoral god?

Like I said, the Church is silent on the interpretation of these bible passages (leaving it up for the reader to form their own understanding). The Church also teaches that rape is immoral and that God does not change. Using this information, I personally believe that these stories are allegorical. I do not believe God commanded the men to forcefully marry these virgins.

I can only speak for myself and how I have come to understand this.

---

(June 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well for the record, I definitely don't think rape is moral. It is, in fact, one of the things I have listed as inherently immoral.

As for all the bible talk about rape, I will say that the Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, and Catholics are free to interpret them literally or allegorically. While I see them strictly as didactic fiction, Randy seems to have taken a more literal view. To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters. In the grand scheme of things, and as long as Randy and I both adhere to Church teaching, whether or not we interpret these stories in the same way, is just details.

Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it still in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

I know that these passages don't portray rape as immoral. I was speaking about the Church. The Church does consider rape immoral, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

---

(June 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

It's true what she's saying though, I suspect Randy is a former Protestant as I can detect a strong American Evangelical vibe to much of his personal theology. It's not heretical but it's rather different from the more traditional, ethereal/indefinable approach of Catholic_Lady which is more usual amongst "Cradle Catholics".

Thank you for clearing this up for Wizard on my behalf. I appreciate it.

(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.

And now I have shown more of the same book which contains additional provisions for the treatment of women captives. So, while no one MAY have been lying when they were ignorant of that, if they continue to claim that God condones rape, they are lying.

Quote: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.

Let's make this simple.

1. Was the treatment of women captives specified in Dt. 21 better than the way they were treated before the giving of the Law or by other nations?

2. Given that the women WERE spoils of war, was it better that they be treated as wives than as mere sex toys?

Yes or no.

(June 23, 2015 at 7:56 pm)Metis Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

It's true what she's saying though, I suspect Randy is a former Protestant as I can detect a strong American Evangelical vibe to much of his personal theology. It's not heretical but it's rather different from the more traditional, ethereal/indefinable approach of Catholic_Lady which is more usual amongst "Cradle Catholics".

Ya sure I agree with that, but saying the story is allegorical does not address the morality that the story portrays. What message where bible writers trying to convey by writing those horrific stories.

(June 23, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: While other nations all around them were ACTUALLY raping women captured in war, Israel was commanded to behave differently. BY GOD.

So there is good rape and bad rape. I never heard that before. Please enlighten us.

Yes lets make it simple Randy, you think these women where lucky because instead of being raped once, they where forced to marry their attackers so they could be raped over and over again for the rest of their life.