https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eMsvf5CyUw

(June 25, 2015 at 12:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 3. He believes God had to integrate Himself slowly into the morality of the people of the time, because they would not have listened if they were hit with all the laws on morality all at once.

^You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment of the OT, but to say he condones rape and/or believes God condones rape is just dishonest.

Care to address the counter point?!?

(June 24, 2015 at 9:41 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: It's complete bullshit no matter how you slice it. If your gawd is the creator of everything and has been around since before the beginning, why did he allow them to become such reprobates in the first place? Maybe your all powerful, all knowing gawd should have looked in his crystal ball, saw what was coming and put some rules in place before shit got out of hand.

(June 25, 2015 at 10:30 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 12:01 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Rob, what it boils down to is "Whatever gawd says is moral is what I believe is moral."

I can't really agree.  I think what really goes on in that process is "whatever I think is moral is going to color the way I read the Bible so that I will find support for it."

Look at Randy's pretzel logic about God's approval of rape.  Here we have an all-powerful deity perfectly capable of abolishing the practice of rape through means both mortal and immortal, and yet not only does he not do that, he gradates rape into different varieties, some of which are clearly more acceptable than others. The subtext of all those verses is that women are the property of men, and that rape constitutes a devaluation of property, and that in those cases, men are to be compensated. If there is any opprobrium attached to rape in those passages, it is due to economic damage, not moral considerations.  

Yet Randy is arguing that his god detests rape, and that is because his god is the basis of morality. His entire argument is a non-sequitur, and Randy might even be smart enough to have known that as he set about constructing it; but he went right to the passages, hammered them into the argument even though they aren't apt, and struts away smug in his belief that the god he worships is not a monster.

And that leaves us with, "Whatever I believe is moral is what God says is moral."

Said far better than I.

(June 25, 2015 at 6:12 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Maybe that's another good reason why some forums lock the threads at 1,000 posts.

I don't find any reason good enough to lock threads; if people want to continue to beat a dead horse, they should be free to do so.

Come now Becca. Randy has shared his "wisdom" and we'd be fools to ignore him.

(June 25, 2015 at 11:20 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 12:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: 3. He believes God had to integrate Himself slowly into the morality of the people of the time, because they would not have listened if they were hit with all the laws on morality all at once.

^You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment of the OT, but to say he condones rape and/or believes God condones rape is just dishonest.

Care to address the counter point?!?

(June 24, 2015 at 9:41 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: It's complete bullshit no matter how you slice it. If your gawd is the creator of everything and has been around since before the beginning, why did he allow them to become such reprobates in the first place? Maybe your all powerful, all knowing gawd should have looked in his crystal ball, saw what was coming and put some rules in place before shit got out of hand.

You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment. My point was just to show that Randy does not condone rape or believes God condones rape. He was being accused of it earlier, so I wanted to be sure people understood what he was saying and that neither of the things he was being accused of were true.

(June 25, 2015 at 11:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 11:20 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Care to address the counter point?!?

You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment. My point was just to show that Randy does not condone rape or believes God condones rape. He was being accused of it earlier, so I wanted to be sure people understood what he was saying and that neither of the things he was being accused of were true.

So, you're not going to address the counter point. Ok then...

(June 25, 2015 at 11:55 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 11:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment. My point was just to show that Randy does not condone rape or believes God condones rape. He was being accused of it earlier, so I wanted to be sure people understood what he was saying and that neither of the things he was being accused of were true.

So, you're not going to address the counter point. Ok then...

I don't know how. The argument I presented was Randy's, not mine. I have a different opinion on the OT.

(June 25, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 5:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, we spotted that.

Maybe that's another good reason why some forums lock the threads at 1,000 posts.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.  

You probably have me on ignore, but that's all the better reason to remind everyone that in WWII, there was not one city bombed by Hitler's Luftwaffe due to Catholic protests.

Not one.  You don't have the goods, and you don't have the spine to answer me directly. 

Ignore: When God's armor isn't cutting the mustard.

Some god. Some messenger.  Meh.

(June 25, 2015 at 6:12 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Maybe that's another good reason why some forums lock the threads at 1,000 posts.

I don't find any reason good enough to lock threads; if people want to continue to beat a dead horse douchebag, they should be free to do so.

Fixed for accuracy.

(June 26, 2015 at 12:00 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 11:55 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: So, you're not going to address the counter point. Ok then...

I don't know how. The argument I presented was Randy's, not mine. I have a different opinion on the OT.

You defended his point over and over acting as if it made all the sense in the world. My point is really quite simple. If gawd didn't condone rape, he should have set up the rules before their morality got so poor. Your gawd is all knowing, yeah?