(June 23, 2015 at 1:14 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(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*

If the gawd of the buy-bull exists, as described by the buy-bull, it's the ultimate abusive spouse. Not only does it demand "love me or I'll do really nasty shit to you", there's no one you can call to make the fucker stop.

(June 23, 2015 at 8:20 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 7:58 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 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.

---

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.

---

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

Wait what? You just said you think the story is allegorical and that god did not command these men to rape. I pointed out that whether you think the story is allegorical or literal god was clearly commanding the men to rape.

God in the story was commanding them to rape. God in real life, on the other hand, I don't believe ever did this.

As I said before, the OT God is portrayed through the filter of man, who wrote it. The OT was not written by God Himself, and so it is not infallible.

---

(June 23, 2015 at 8:28 pm)Simon Moon 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.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. 


That's some world class mental gymnastics you got going on there.

It is what the Church teaches.

(June 23, 2015 at 8:10 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(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.

(June 23, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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.

Yeah. Cause there's no chance that these ladies ever came to love their husbands.

Why, that wouldn't fit your narrative, would it?

But you didn't answer my questions.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 8:46 pm)Metis Wrote: Depends entirely who you ask, it's that subjective.

The thing I believe Randy is alluding to is the theory that the Bible is a continuous narrative, a "love story" as some believers describe it between God and man and the slowly developing efforts of man to find and understand his creator. Some bits are sweet, some are bitter but it slowly improves and matures over time like a fine wine.

I personally don't think the stories have a purpose, they're told for the sake of being told the same way other cultures have myths. The Greeks have Heracules, the Irish have Cu Cuchulain ; just a small story that unites them all under a common banner and communal identity. Very powerful when you think about it.

Yes I agree I've asked CL several times what those stories mean and she just keeps telling me she believes they are allegoric, which tells me nothing. That's why I said it seems like she is just avoiding the question. If she believes the stories are allegoric then she must have some belief about the message they are trying to convey.

The Church does not assign meaning to the vast majority of them. I agree that they thus do not all have a purpose other than perhaps to show that God has always been there.

Would that be a church constructed through the filter of man?

(June 23, 2015 at 2:11 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: What do you mean? Can you give me an example that would show that I don't understand or don't know? Another possibility is that you don't understand the concept I am trying to explain. ;-)

You've explained your position a hundred times, and it's been explained to you a hundred times why what you're talking about isn't actually objective at all.  Just because you call it that doesn't make it so.  Bottom line: the concept you've "explained" so far is not objective morality; not even close.

For example:

"Theft is an objective immorality."

"Oh?  You can't think of any time theft can be moral?"

"Oh, well, it's ok if someone is hungry, as long as they don't take too much."

"But you said it was objective..."

"Well, it's still immoral, but that's ok because those people aren't culpable."

So, if people aren't culpable for some of their immoral acts, what's the point of having "objective" morals at all?  In other words, not only do they not exist, they can't exist.

There's no such thing as an objective moral nor is there any such thing as an inherent property. Getting these two things through to a kathy-lick is like trying to nail jello to a concrete wall.

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

Actually, wars aren't that clean-cut. Firstly, every war has an offensive and a defensive side, and what's even funnier, those sides can change from offense to defense or vice-versa at any time in the war.

The German soldiers fighting and dying in 1940 were doing so in order to secure Germany's hold on Europe, with all that implies about that regime's evil policies. And the German soldiers fighting and dying in 1944 were doing so in order to defend (your standard for justifiable war) that same regime. In 1940, the Allies were defending. In 1944, the Allies were attacking. The idea that defense is the only acceptable reason to excuse the killing done by soldiers is clearly silly. All wars fall into this "category", as you put it, of being a defensive war; it is certainly defensie for one side.

Furthermore, the morality of their killing clearly relies upon the circumstances of the battle, the nations and practices they are fighting for, and the time, place, and circumstances of the shots fired.

Shooting an enemy soldier in a fortress and shooting an enemy soldier in your own PoW camp both have the same result: one enemy soldier dead. Yet you and I both know that the morality of the two acts are entirely different. Shooting a Frenchman defending a parliamentary democracy was entirely different from shooting a German wishing to subjugate a continent. Shooting a German soldier was obviously different from shooting a German civilian.

The principle objection I have to the concept of moral objectivity is that it invariably ignores nuance, and invariably uses a broad brush, just as your pronouncement here that "all killing is evil unless in self-defense" has been shown to be hollow.


So, if you'd do me the favor of answering my question: if all killing is immoral, is the killing done by a soldier immoral?

(June 23, 2015 at 8:25 pm)Metis Wrote: Well that's because Pius XII was an appeaser and was very wary of offending Hitler, not to mention he always considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. The last one addressing the German Reich was Mit brennender Sorge (as I mentioned the one penned by Achille Ratti never was officially proclaimed) and from then until March 19 1945 when Pius XII released Ben Volontieri the Papacy was more or less silent on the matter . Mother Pascalina amongst others did do much to help Italian Jews, but that was always off the books without official sanction.

You've read the Myth of Hitler's Pope by Rabbi David Dalin?

Quote: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.

I doubt it, who would want to waste their life getting a degree in what most here would consider folklore or mythology? I didn't really come here to have academic debates, I came mostly looking for other non-believers to chat to since I spend the vast majority of my time surrounded by believers. It's nice having somewhere to talk about other things with similar minded people.

Catholics have Catholic get togethers don't they? What's so strange about me wanting to talk to other non believers?[/quote]

But then you engage me in a discussion of the very topics you want to get away from. What's up with that?

This is something that I think is very telling...in an atheist forum, the subforum with the most threads and views is the Christianity forum. And right now, for any number of reasons (not all of them positive I concede), I'm the one everyone is enjoying taking shots at.

Either way, you're obviously not talking about "other things with similar minded people". Your talking about Catholicism with me.

Quote:

Quote: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?

Power I personally think. For much the same reason men have always waged war, they want fame, they want wealth, they want to have power over their fellow man. I think Catholicism has over the centuries developed an increasingly autocratic bent, really rather reminiscent of the late Roman Empire. You ask why the Pope needs to control you? I don't think he actually does anymore on a financial front, the Vatican bank propped up with the funds from the Lateran Treaty and the nothing short of miraculous fund raising powers of Cardinal Spellman barely more than half a century ago has ensured the Catholic Church no longer requires it's members to prop it up financially as it sits as one of the biggest players on the stock market. What the curia may need people for is support, money's all well and good but you never get what you want done without boots on the ground acting out your ideas.

And what would be the ideas that I'm supposed to be acting out on behalf of the Vatican, Metis? (I need to know in case I'm not doing something!)

Quote:That said while religion is a curious device and can be set up for a purpose sometimes it supersedes it. We know Shinto was set up solely to promote awe and reverence of the Japanese emperor who claimed to be the son of God. When the Emperor finally falls after World War two and renounces his claim does the religion end? No, it carries on. Now it has no purpose, its values and rituals are so deeply ingrained in Japanese culture it rolls on ahead without a pilot. The Catholic Church is organized in a manner suited to a large fiefdom, now it commands a far larger population but without the temporal power to force it's laws. Its lead to an interesting change of tactic alright, moving from direct force to financial lobbying and influencing politicians indirectly. It has adapted better than most, and I suspect it will do so for centuries to come as it devises new ways to explain changes within.

That's going to be a great disappointment from your co-non-religionists here.

Quote:I don't profess to know what the Pope wants, Francis appears to me a rather amiable man. I don't doubt it is likely he truly believes he is doing the best he can for humanity. Just because one is in the leading position doesn't mean one always understands everything about how what you command came to be. Forgive me if this sounds vague Randy, Religion is a difficult subject to grasp anyway (most Religious Studies/Theology students would argue it's actually a non-category since it can be used to describe just about anything) but religious motives are far less concrete, and the line between a divinely inspired and mundane reason for something are often fairly blurred and subjective.

As for my training? My Bachelors was more historical based with about a third of my time spent on scripture. When I attended the Orthodox seminary my studies were almost exclusivley scriptural and doctrinal, but I did elect to do that as well since I felt my understanding of Church History was already very broad.

One other personal question:

Your an atheist which means you are opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have degrees from a Protestant university, which means you have studied theology which is opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.
You have a degree from an Orthodox university which means you have studied MORE theology opposed to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Do you think it is possible for you to be objective about what the Catholic Church teaches?

And if so, then what has Catholicism gotten right?

(June 23, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 1:16 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Oh, right.  Nice objective morality you've got there.  


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


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.


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".


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.

Nice little tantrum, becca. I know you must feel better having gotten that off your chest.

Of course, what has been BUSTED beyond repair is your LIES that God condoned rape. While other nations all around them were ACTUALLY raping women captured in war, Israel was commanded to behave differently. BY GOD.

And that just doesn't square with the soundtrack playing on endless loop in your head, does it?



At some point, you really ought to man up and admit that what you thought about God and rape was simply wrong.

But even if you can't manage that, I'll know...and so does everyone else who has now seen Dt. 21 in addition to your prooftext from Dt. 20.

Randy, how would you feel if you were forced to marry the person who brutally slaughtered your family merely a month after it happened?!? If you're answer is anything other than "I'd be fine with it." then your justifications are bullshit.

Of course, I fully expect you to ignore this.

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

The odd thing is, your god didn't come out and say, "those women whose husbands you killed, help them out with food even if you don't rape them".

Now, when we conquered Germany in 1945, in the ensuing years, we not only flew a mighty airlift to Berlin in order to feed the children we'd made fatherless, in the face of Russian sanctions; we wrote essentially a blank check for the country in order that Germany could get back on its feet.

Compare that to your own god's dictate that "if you rape her, you're stuck with her".

How is it that your perfect god could not come up with a solution as beneficial as that of imperfect men?

Your god's laws might have saved "a few women" from being raped. But how many did it condemn to being raped and then hauled off to a foreign country as a war prize?

Was that the best your god could do, in moral terms?

Fuck me, what a disgusting apologia. You exemplify the moral corrosion Christianity inflicts upon its True Believers.

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

You're right: a haircut, new clothing, and a month for mourning are just compensation for being kidnapped and forcibly fucked against your will until you succumb to Stockholm Syndrome and love your rapist.

I've heard that new prisoners get the same treatment in the American judicial system. Is that the best your little tin-horn godling can do?

That is what commands your worship?

You have no grounds to lecture anyone on morality.

(June 23, 2015 at 9:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Yeah. Cause there's no chance that these ladies ever came to love their husbands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Please, read up on this. You're a victim of it, too.