What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I apologize. Let me be clear.

I believe the stories told in the OT were written allegorically. I do not believe the story of Jesus in the NT was written allegorically. That doesn't mean that Jesus Himself didn't sometimes use figure of speech or metaphor when describing something. This is nothing unusual or alarming. We all do it, probably every day.

What that means for you is that interpretation is vital to understanding the Bible. What makes your interpretation privileged?

Again, you're cherry-picking, in this case selecting which verses need interpretation and "context" and which can be read literally. And you've decided that you need not accept the OT as literal not because you have any independent reason for so doing, but because it doesn't comport with the morality you personally feel.

[Catholic_Lady]

If believing in an afterlife means a person stops caring so much about material possessions and superficial things, and starts looking more out at the big picture verses just selfishly on themselves, then I think this is very positive. Even if it ends up not being true.

Not caring about material possessions and and superficial things does not make one unselfish, and being unselfish isn't mutually exclusive from caring about material things.

 

Oh I agree. I meant them as 2 separate things. Sorry if I was not clear.

For example: I own a car; it's not fancy, but it's not absolutely necessary for me to own it.  However, if I didn't own a car, I couldn't make to it to my SART (sexual assault response team) calls when I get them, and I wouldn't be able to help out the victim.

It's not owning a car that's a problem. Sorry if I made it sound that way. It's *caring* about your car (or any other material possession) more than you should.

Spending a ton of money on a super fancy car you don't need, is inferior to getting a more practical car and using the rest of the money on charity, etc. Likewise, if your car gets scratched, it's a far better response to say "well that really sucks, but a car is a car" verses acting super upset about it and like your world is about to collapse.

Those are just examples, but I think you know what I mean when I say "caring too much" about these things.

Of course, you don't need to believe in afterlife for that, but it can help keep things into perspective in the sense that there is much more than just materialistic things of this life. It is what helps me personally.

[The Grand Nudger]

And you..and your church..are the arbitrators of how much a person -should- care about something...and what those something's -should- be? Love to see that math, show your work?

[Catholic_Lady]

I just want to address this real quick because it just seems to me as very far from the truth.

1. The Church teaches to save sex for marriage. This alone would cut down on a lot of pregnancies.

Just one tiny detail that you may not be aware:

Can you spot what's wrong with this image?

Can you agree that saving sex for marriage prevents pregnancy?

If you don't follow the teaching to save sex for marriage, obviously you are fair game with out of wedlock pregnancy. I'm not sure what your post is supposed to be telling me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do you approve of raping 13-year-old boys?  Do you think it's more moral than raping 10-year-old boys?

Sorry that my hair-splitter is in the shop for sharpening.  You'll need to distinguish the moral differences of the two acts, and you'll need to explain why you regard that difference as meaningful.

This entire "it wasn't pedophilia, raping adolescents is called hebephilia" entirely dodges the point that priests fucking young boys  is a betrayal of the morality those priests are charged with exemplifying.

You're retreating to semantics because you know you've already lost the moral battle.  Don't think you're fooling anyone here ... but in case you do think that, I will make sure to disabuse you of that notion.

Oh the Irony.

You hypocrites came out of the woodwork to defend a homosexual (Harvey Milk) having sex with an underage teen, I wonder why you guys can't seem to get behind the homosexuals in the Catholic church.....[

Hey, dumbfuck, I didn't post in that thread. You have any link at all to me under this name or my usual "Thumpalumpacus" where I defend the rape of teenagers?

No, you don't. Because I've never done that. I haven't defended Milk's actions. You don't realize how stupid you look here, so I'm trying to help you out here: you should restrict yourself actual facts. Dumbfuck.

[Catholic_Lady]

I apologize. Let me be clear.

I believe the stories told in the OT were written allegorically. I do not believe the story of Jesus in the NT was written allegorically. That doesn't mean that Jesus Himself didn't sometimes use figure of speech or metaphor when describing something. This is nothing unusual or alarming. We all do it, probably every day.

What that means for you is that interpretation is vital to understanding the Bible. What makes your interpretation privileged?

In my opinion, the Church.
...2000 years of theologians and philosophers constantly studying the bible, studying the culture of the time, trying to gain understanding, etc.

I believe the Church is the main pillar of Truth, not the bible itself.

[pocaracas]

Just one tiny detail that you may not be aware:

---

---

Can you spot what's wrong with this image?

Can you agree that saving sex for marriage prevents pregnancy?

If you don't follow the teaching to save sex for marriage, obviously you are fair game with out of wedlock pregnancy. I'm not sure what your post is supposed to be telling me.

I agree...
The trouble is, in those places where that notion is being actively pushed onto the young people, you find that they end up pregnant more than elsewhere.
So, clearly, as correct as the premise may sound, on paper, it is not applicable to the population at large.

That's something that an institution that claims to somehow be in contact with the supreme being should have gotten right, straight off the bat... instead, it goes on pushing a notion that is doomed to fail... a notion that is statistically shown to fail.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you don't follow the teachings (or morality) of jesus after all..you follow the teachings (and morality) of the church, Catholic.

[Catholic_Lady]

Oh the Irony.

You hypocrites came out of the woodwork to defend a homosexual (Harvey Milk) having sex with an underage teen, I wonder why you guys can't seem to get behind the homosexuals in the Catholic church.....[

Hey, dumbfuck, I didn't post in that thread. You have any link at all to me under this name or my usual "Thumpalumpacus" where I defend the rape of teenagers?

No, you don't.  Because I've never done that. I haven't defended Milk's actions.  You don't realize how stupid you look here, so I'm trying to help you out here: you should restrict yourself actual facts.  Dumbfuck.

Parker Tan, I know you don't like what he wrote, but do you really think that kind of treatment was warranted?

He shouldn't have generalized you with the other atheists of this blog, but don't you think you too sometimes generalize Christians with other Christians of this blog?

---

Oh the Irony.

You hypocrites came out of the woodwork to defend a homosexual (Harvey Milk) having sex with an underage teen, I wonder why you guys can't seem to get behind the homosexuals in the Catholic church.....[

Hey, dumbfuck, I didn't post in that thread. You have any link at all to me under this name or my usual "Thumpalumpacus" where I defend the rape of teenagers?

No, you don't.  Because I've never done that. I haven't defended Milk's actions.  You don't realize how stupid you look here, so I'm trying to help you out here: you should restrict yourself actual facts.  Dumbfuck.

Parker Tan, I know you don't like what he wrote, but do you really think that kind of treatment was warranted?

He shouldn't have generalized you with the other atheists of this blog, but don't you think you too sometimes generalize Christians with other Christians of this blog?

[FatAndFaithless]

I think there's a miscommunication on this marriage-sex thing.

Abstinence is an effective way of preventing pregnancies, yes. Just like staying away from all water is an effective way to prevent drowning. Not engaging in the activity by definition is a way to avoid the possible results of said activity.

The problem is that in the southern US, abstinence is preached as the only way to prevent pregnancies, and no other possible ways are taught, discussed, or disseminated to the young people of these regions. That is what 'abstinence only' education is. The problem, is that young people are, well, young people, and sex is one of our most powerful natural urges and needs. People have sex. It's just a fact. It's going to happen whether you think it's immoral or not. The problem is that when young people have sex in thse regions, they have absolutely no idea about how to use any sort of contraceptives or even what options are available due to their utterly restrictive sex education. This leads to an extremely predictable (as shown in the map) trend of teen pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies out of wedlock, and STD's in the regions that stick to abstinence only education.

Is not having a sex a way to avoid the results of having sex? Of course. But teaching young people who are exploring their emerging sexuality that abstinence is the only possible way to prevent pregnancies is both dishonest and massively ineffective. People are going to have sex. It's far more responsible to educate them about their options to make it as safe as possible than to stick your fingers in your ears and preach abstinence-only. (Not saying that's what you do, CL, but that's what the schools do in the South)