What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[IATIA]

"The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.

So, taking another person's resources in the face of urgent necessity (food, shelter, clothing) is not considered theft per the catechism. I should have made this distinction with my response to you when "theft" was on my list of inherently immoral acts.

---

Subjective morality!

Read carefully. :-)

What they are saying is that this is not considered theft. Theft is still inherently immoral.

(my bold)

My bold indicates subjective terms that when used in conjunction with the determination of theft, makes that determination subjective also.

Who determines what is reasonable will? Subjective
Who determines presumption of consent? Subjective
Who determines contrary to reason? Subjective
Who determines urgent necessity? Subjective

[abaris]

It's what is so infuriating about them puritans - sure, you can say the most bigoted and hateful stuff, how some people are lesser humans or everyone deserves to be tortured forever, as long as you don't say "damn" or "shit".

These lyrics always come to mind in cases like these.

"...hate your next door neighbour, but don't forget to say grace...."

Copyright Barry McGuire

[Longhorn]

It's what is so infuriating about them puritans - sure, you can say the most bigoted and hateful stuff, how some people are lesser humans or everyone deserves to be tortured forever, as long as you don't say "damn" or "shit". That's the most important issue, obviously. Because God doesn't like it I suppose.

Fuck him. We'll talk when he gets his omnipotent ass down here and says it to my face.

[Brakeman]

Some ancient cultures had weak to practically no social sense of possession. Several tribes of the American Indians earned terrible reputations as thieves because they took things that they did not consider to be possessed.

If I caught a butterfly in your yard and kept it, did I steal it? If I caught your pet puppy in your yard and took it, did I steal it?
"Objectively" tell me the difference.

[Pyrrho]

Some ancient cultures had weak to practically no social sense of possession. Several tribes of the American Indians earned terrible reputations as thieves because they took things that they did not consider to be possessed.

If I caught a butterfly in your yard and kept it, did I steal it? If I caught your pet puppy in your yard and took it, did I steal it?
"Objectively" tell me the difference.

Keep your thieving hands off of my butterflies.

[Randy Carson]

Many Catholics agree...because they believe that the taking and giving of life belongs to God alone.

Oh, right.  Nice objective morality you've got there.  

If only you had read a little further, you would understand more. This is just ONE CHAPTER later:

Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

The captured woman is allowed time to mourn. She is then MARRIED...not raped. Thus,

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED. TIME TO LET IT GO.

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

Harsh, but the obvious issue here is that if the girl did not protest, then the sex may have been consensual. We see this in the headlines EVERY DAY. The cry of "rape" only occurs a few days later. Anyone remember the Duke Lacrosse team?

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.

Marrying them according to the law. See the passage quoted above.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN. TIME TO LET IT GO.

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".

The man was guilty of raping her, and he was required to pay restitution, to marry her and NEVER divorce her caring for her all the rest of his days.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED A THIRD TIME. TIME TO LET IT GO.

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 Carson]

The belief is that they never actually had sex.

and that somehow makes a 30yo man marrying a 12yo ok?

Sure it was smart for Mary and Joseph to Mary.

The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 120, when some of those who had known the apostles were still alive. It records that Mary was dedicated before her birth to serve the Lord in the temple as Samuel had been dedicated by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). This required perpetual virginity of Mary so that she could completely devote herself to the service of the Lord.

According to the Protoevangelium, concerns about ceremonial cleanliness required that Mary have a male protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Joseph was "chosen by lot to take into [his] keeping the Virgin of the Lord." His duty to guard Mary was taken so seriously that when Mary conceived, Joseph had to answer to the temple authorities. So Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was not in conflict with her vow of virginity.

Mary was ever-virgin. No sex with Joseph.

Hope this helps.

[rexbeccarox]

Ok, Randy... let's take a poll: how many in this thread think I'm making my case and how many think Randy is making his? A show of hands, please.

[Randy Carson]

....but Joseph and Mary are an exception, right?

Don't guilt trip me. That's a nasty catholic habit.

To me the idea that you find a forced marriage between a child and a full grown man acceptable is sick.

And you're a moral relativist if I've ever seen one.

Nope. See my post above.

Mary married Joseph for protection because she could no longer stay in the Temple during her monthly period due to the Jewish laws about ritual purity. As an older widower, he agreed to take Mary into his home and honor her vow of perpetual virginity.

[Randy Carson]

That's not what Christopher Hitchens said. But whatever.

It may have escaped your notice but I am not Christopher Hitchens. Maybe it's something of an alien concept for you but I don't necessarily have to agree lock-step with everything said by other people, even if they are or were atheists. It's not as though we revere our 'leaders', such as they are, merely because they happen to be prominent. They're not our popes or anything so silly.

However, feel free to give the actual quote of what the Hitch said.

Quote 1

"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick, and commanded to be well. I’ll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea. Greedy, exigent, greedy for uncritical phrase from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original since with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place."

From the debate transcript: Christopher Hitchens v. Tony Blair.

Fawning agreement here.

Quote 2

And another quote here which says:

For Hitchens, if there existed a God who answered prayers and intervened in human affairs, “we would be living under an unalterable celestial dictatorship that could read our thoughts while we were asleep and convict us of thought crime and pursue us after we after are dead, and in the name of which priesthoods and other oligarchies and hierarchies would be set up to enforce God’s law.” Essentially, we’d be living in a supernatural Orwellian world.

Hope that helps.