Regarding the debate about rape and the God of the OT:

My opinion is that the text clearly condones rape, at least in certain circumstances. To convince yourself otherwise is to try and patch up one verse by finding another which contradicts it and convince yourself the horrible bit is negated; or to weave a ridiculous narrative in your head that somehow justifies it. CL however takes a different approach, to deny it ever actually happened. I much prefer this last approach, partly because I agree that it didn't happen (at least not anything like as written) and partly because there is then no need to justify it as a real story and so defend the immorality. To an atheist it's very hard to understand how someone can think the bible is the word of God yet contains things that are totally wrong, or allegories for...?... no idea what they could possibly be allegories for. But this clearly works for CL, and the result is she comes out able to keep her morality regarding rape being wrong. Even though I can't begin to understand the thought processes, the end result is she is firmly against rape, and that's the most important thing.

The OT God is evil, through and through. Virtually everything he does I would associate with an evil fascist dictator, just one who happens to be magical as well.

Now, most civilized people feel very strongly rape is wrong. So that means they must make some sort of excuses for why the bible clearly condones it. That's fine, as long as your end result is that you say rape is wrong, I don't much care what mental hoops you have to jump through to override your sacred text. The danger for any particular Christian is that they may know rape is wrong, but end up having to partially justify it in order to preserve their belief that their morality actually comes from the bible. That is sickening, and a clear example of religion warping morality and sucking us back to the dark ages.

However, some people may really think rape is OK. In that case all they have to do is refer to the text as is, and they have instant righteous justification, at least in the eyes of anyone who takes the text seriously. That is the scariest part of all.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:41 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Ok... but that doesn't answer my question.  What is the point of the pope?

Oh, sorry.

To make these decisions.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:43 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:38 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: So, at this point I'm not even sure what to take from this. You seem to think that killing in a just war is moral, but immoral if the war is unjust. Ok. Then you make opposing statements about whether Bush's wars are just.

Killing is moral in a just war. Is Bush's oil war just and if not, are the soldiers defending their units from the "enemy" moral or immoral.

Your questions was this:

"So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!?"

My answer was this:

"The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was."

Killing in self defense is always justifiable, regardless of whether you're in a war or not, or whether it's a just war or not.

Sorry if it can get confusing on here. I hope that clears it up.

You really need to quit conflating self defense and defense. They are very much two different things.

Ok. During the invasion of Iraq, a war we've both agreed is unjust, a squad of soldiers are given a mission, and all the orders are lawful. The mission requires they kill enemy soldiers, not in defense of anything, but as part of the objective of the mission. They've been given lawful orders and under the Unified Code of Military Justice could be court marshaled for refusing the orders, is it moral for them to carry out those orders, killing Iraqi soldiers to do so?

(June 24, 2015 at 12:46 am)robvalue Wrote: Regarding the debate about rape and the God of the OT:

My opinion is that the text clearly condones rape, at least in certain circumstances. To convince yourself otherwise is to try and patch up one verse by finding another which contradicts it and convince yourself the horrible bit is negated; or to weave a ridiculous narrative in your head that somehow justifies it. CL however takes a different approach, to deny it ever actually happened. I much prefer this last approach, partly because I agree that it didn't happen (at least not anything like as written) and partly because there is then no need to justify it as a real story and so defend the immorality. To an atheist it's very hard to understand how someone can think the bible is the word of God yet contains things that are totally wrong, or allegories for...?... no idea what they could possibly be allegories for. But this clearly works for CL, and the result is she comes out able to keep her morality regarding rape being wrong. Even though I can't begin to understand the thought processes, the end result is she is firmly against rape, and that's the most important thing.

The OT God is evil, through and through. Virtually everything he does I would associate with an evil fascist dictator, just one who happens to be magical as well.

Now, most civilized people feel very strongly rape is wrong. So that means they must make some sort of excuses for why the bible clearly condones it. That's fine, as long as your end result is that you say rape is wrong, I don't much care what mental hoops you have to jump through to override your sacred text. The danger for any particular Christian is that they may know rape is wrong, but end up having to partially justify it in order to preserve their belief that their morality actually comes from the bible. That is sickening, and a clear example of religion warping morality and sucking us back to the dark ages.

However, some people may really think rape is OK. In that case all they have to do is refer to the text as is, and they have instant righteous justification, at least in the eyes of anyone who takes the text seriously. That is the scariest part of all.

I agree with this assessment.

I don't really care whether a person believes the OT's stories are written literally or not. As long as they still believe rape and slavery and murder, etc, are immoral, that's all that matters IMHO.

If in the end we all agree, theres no reason to get wrapped up and upset about nuances and details regarding belief in the OT. Luckily I've never come across anyone who supports those things.

Thank you I'm glad you agree.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:49 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:43 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Your questions was this:

"So, soldiers defending their units in one of the unjust Bush oil wars are immoral then?!?"

My answer was this:

"The soldiers defending themselves was not immoral. But I do think the decision to go to war was."

Killing in self defense is always justifiable, regardless of whether you're in a war or not, or whether it's a just war or not.

Sorry if it can get confusing on here. I hope that clears it up.

You really need to quit conflating self defense and defense. They are very much two different things.

Ok. During the invasion of Iraq, a war we've both agreed is unjust, a squad of soldiers are given a mission, and all the orders are lawful. The mission requires they kill enemy soldiers, not in defense of anything, but as part of the objective of the mission. They've been given lawful orders and under the Unified Code of Military Justice could be court marshaled for refusing the orders, is it moral for them to carry out those orders, killing Iraqi soldiers to do so?

I made the distinction in post 1501:

"Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral."

Personally? I don't think it's a moral act. But cannot speak for the culpability of these men/women given the situation they're in. My husband is military, and while his job is not combative, I still have respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to serve their country, despite a bad leader ordering them to go to war.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Some things depend on the circumstances, others are inherently immoral regardless of circumstances. This one in particular depends on the circumstances. But let me make it clear that I believe it still does have a definitive answer as to weather or not it is moral.

^All this per my beliefs, of course.

"This one in particular" is a phrase that translates to every moral situation, Cathy. The thing is, when you start using phrases like that, your morality becomes granular: this pebble and that pebble touch but don't connect, you get similar ideas but no overarching principles -- and that is what objective morality really is, the proclamations of overarching ideas.

Your individuality rebels against it, because you know that things like the rape of war brides, or the slaughter of noncombatants, is wrong. But because they're in the Bible, you feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 23, 2015 at 11:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Catholicism is about guilt.  It is in the interests of the priests to keep the hoops too high for the dogs to navigate.

By that I meant that no one is perfect, so no one is going to do everything the right way all the time. We just have to continue to try our best.

Having been an active Catholic my whole life, I can tell you that Catholicism is not about guilt.

So you don't do confession? I thought that was required to receive sacrament.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:41 am)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:36 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The pope is only infalliable in matters of faith and morals. And he needs to specify that he is making an infallible pronouncement. It is a very big deal when this happens, and has only happened less than a dozen times in the past 2000 years. The last time was in the 1950's. The time before that was in the mid 1850's.

Ok... but that doesn't answer my question.  What is the point of the pope?

He's the guy who says whose party hat is the coolest.

(June 24, 2015 at 1:01 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Some things depend on the circumstances, others are inherently immoral regardless of circumstances. This one in particular depends on the circumstances. But let me make it clear that I believe it still does have a definitive answer as to weather or not it is moral.

^All this per my beliefs, of course.

"This one in particular" is a phrase that translates to every moral situation, Cathy. The thing is, when you start using phrases like that, your morality becomes granular: this pebble and that pebble touch but don't connect, you get similar ideas but no overarching principles -- and that is what objective morality really is, the proclamations of overarching ideas.

Your individuality rebels against it, because you know that things like the rape of war brides, or the slaughter of noncombatants, is wrong.  But because they're in the Bible, you feel compelled to defend the indefensible.

I see what you're saying. But my point is that even though it isn't as easy to determine as an act that is inherently immoral, it still does have an answer. It still is either right or wrong. It just isn't as easy to determine which it is and you have to look at the circumstances to determine it. But there still is an answer. Moral relativism, to my understanding, means that there is no real answer. That it just depends on whatever the person thinks.

(btw, I do think those things you listed are wrong and would never defend them. Randy and I have different views on that.)

(June 24, 2015 at 12:10 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By that I meant that no one is perfect, so no one is going to do everything the right way all the time. We just have to continue to try our best.

Having been an active Catholic my whole life, I can tell you that Catholicism is not about guilt.

So you don't do confession? I thought that was required to receive sacrament.
[/quote]

I do go to confession when I've acted badly... usually it's lashing out at my husband. I have never for one second felt as though Catholicism is about guilt. That has not been my take away at all.

And you only need to go to confession before a sacrament when you've done something particularly bad. The every day wrong things don't require confession before receiving a sacrament. But it's still always good to go anyway.

(June 24, 2015 at 12:46 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 12:41 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Ok... but that doesn't answer my question.  What is the point of the pope?

Oh, sorry.

To make these decisions.

To make what decisions?