What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Cyberman]

No mention of resentment, I notice. So on that point I agree with you - it is indeed not what he said. But whatever.

[Randy Carson]

That's interesting about Catholics denying James is the brother of Jesus. Interesting because the earliest and most often touted extra biblical source confirming even the slightest hint of Jesus actually being a historical figure relies on James being his brother (Josephus). Despite the massive forgery therein, there is a second mention of "Jesus" via his brother which seems to be considered genuine. It's loose and far from makes the whole case, but it's the best they have and the Catholics apparently have jettisoned it unless I'm missing something.

This is a classic misunderstanding based on ignorance of the underlying Aramaic in which Jesus and the apostles actually spoke.

The key to Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a "brother." Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like "brother" having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.

[Pyrrho]

---

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.

---

rexbeccarox, you don't seem to understand.  Randy thinks that rape isn't rape if the rapist marries his victim.  And in marrying his victim, that makes his actions okay.  See?  That is Christian morality.

[abaris]

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.

You really believe that, do you? I just give you a hint. Look at the status of women in ancient egypt and then come again on how advanced the Hebrews were compared to their contemporaries. If you had any clue on the real history, I would be much more inclined to listen to anything you have to say.

[Randy Carson]

No, peer review?

Well, let's see...

First, the theologian must be in accord with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Unless the Pope overrides it, as he did with Natural Family Planning methods such as the Creighton which fully conflict with the principles expounded within Casti Connubi amongst other encyclicals.

The Orthodox Church draws from the same sacred tradition base as you do for much of its history and finds no reason to condemn contraception so that's out the window too.

The Orthodox, like the Protestant denominations, caved in to pressure from its membership. Why? No pope.

Then, there are the writings of the Early Church Fathers which must be considered.

Only when it suits you, the Catholic Church regularly rejects works from the Church fathers. Take Tertullian's, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4 and Jeromes Dialogue Against the Luciferians 8 for instance. They hold practices such as new converts drinking milk and forbidding them to bathe for a week as sacred tradition. What about the awkward ones like telling people not to kneel during prayer? I don't think even the Catholic Church denies the historical prayer position from art and historical sources was stood upright with arms raised upwards.

I didn't observe any of these "sacred traditons which take on the weight of written law" according to Tertullian in the same work noted above when I last attended a Catholic Baptismal Mass.

Nor would it be necessary. What you fail to recognized apparently is that while the ECF's were thoroughly Catholic (and this is undeniable), they were not individually infallible. Consequently, when an ECF errs here and there, the Church was able to discern that error and choose the correct path.

Then, there are 2,000 years of theology from the Scholastics such as Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, etc which must be considered.

Again, only when it suits you. Thomas Aquinas held it was a glorious thing to slay a heretic before he could "infect the rest" according to the Summa (ST II-II, q. 64, a. 2) and yet I don't observe Catholics slaughtering anyone here who refuses to repent and convert to Catholicism. It's apparently their Christian duty to defend the word of God isn't it?

Nice example. Aquinas may have been right! The damage done by Martin Luther, for example, has been incalculable.

But no, we don't slaughter heretics anymore. Lucky you.  

Then, there are living theologians who may or may not agree with a given position.

What? You mean like when Leo XIII decided all by himself against the will of his theological advisors that Anglicans didn't have valid orders?[/quote]

Or that contraception would not be permitted by Paul VI. Yep. Jesus said to Peter, "Whatever you bind...". Awesome authority that.

Theologians are pointless in Catholicism, their opinion is worth fuck all unless they are the Pope.

I'm sure some have felt that way. But the pope does have a lot of theological advisors.

Then, there is the Magisterium of the Church of the Church which may be exercised through an Ecumenical Council called to settle a matter of dispute.

Which again the Pope can overrule on a whim as he has at several points in history.

Sure. He is the the head of the Church established by God Himself.

Finally, there is the Pope himself who may agree or disagree and pass judgment on the basis of his own authority.

So the Pope can peer review himself? "Hmm....I don't think I've got enough statues of half naked men on this balcony...Only fitting I have another".

No, the Pope is LIMITED in what he can and cannot teach by doctrine that has already been established and by the Holy Spirit. So, the review of a pope comes from PAST popes, so to speak.

Very fair. Why did the Catholic Church bother torturing a confession of heresy out of Savonarola when they could just ask him to "review" himself and ask if he's a heretic or not?

The story is more complicated that your one-liner suggests.

Oh wait...They did that with Honorius the heretic Pope. More than a little awkward don't you think?

Where did you get your information?

Pope Honorius (625-638) was condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecumenical council in 680 for having, in a letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, smoothed over heretical teaching and failed to give a dogmatic decision.

Much money has been spent by various Protestant bodies in the attempt to find even one formal papal definition which has been proved wrong or to find where one pope, attempting to teach infallibly, contradicted another or an ecumenical council. The records have been diligently searched by brilliant minds. Nothing has been overlooked; not one minor detail has been ignored. The result has been the complete vindication of the Church and the pope.

Articles about Pope Honorius

THE TRUTH ABOUT POPE HONORIUS
By ROBERT SPENCER
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1549265/posts

Guilty Only of Failure to Teach
The Case of Pope Honorius Doesn't Disprove Papal Infallibility
By Steve O'Reilly
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0010fea5.asp

[pocaracas]

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.

No one's making any case.
You're arguing that the book contains rules, supposedly handed down by the god character, which are, as seen from today's western POV, morally bankrupt - it is thus a sign that the morality followed by humans is changing with time.
Randy's arguing that his god always hands down morally solid rules well adjusted for those old times, but people, nowadays, misunderstand them.... the rules remain morally sound, the applicability just needs some tweaking.

You're both saying the same thing, while failing to define what the heck it means for something to BE Moral.... so each claims whatever s/he wants for that word.

[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.

No one's making any case.
You're arguing that the book contains rules, supposedly handed down by the god character, which are, as seen from today's western POV, morally bankrupt - it is thus a sign that the morality followed by humans is changing with time.
Randy's arguing that his god always hands down morally solid rules well adjusted for those old times, but people, nowadays, misunderstand them.... the rules remain morally sound, the applicability just needs some tweaking.

You're both saying the same thing, while failing to define what the heck it means for something to BE Moral.... so each claims whatever s/he wants for that word.

No, poca; what you quoted was in response to Randy saying that his god doesn't condone rape, and that by saying he does, I'm lying. It's a side conversation brought on by the objective/subjective morality debate. As far as how that part of the debate is going, I agree with you.

[pocaracas]

No one's making any case.
You're arguing that the book contains rules, supposedly handed down by the god character, which are, as seen from today's western POV, morally bankrupt - it is thus a sign that the morality followed by humans is changing with time.
Randy's arguing that his god always hands down morally solid rules well adjusted for those old times, but people, nowadays, misunderstand them.... the rules remain morally sound, the applicability just needs some tweaking.

You're both saying the same thing, while failing to define what the heck it means for something to BE Moral.... so each claims whatever s/he wants for that word.

No, poca; what you quoted was in response to Randy saying that his god doesn't condone rape, and that by saying he does, I'm lying.  It's a side conversation brought on by the objective/subjective morality debate.  As far as how that part of the debate is going, I agree with you.

Let's try this: the people who wrote about his god condoned rape of women from other tribes... like ISIS people still do today.

The people of today's western culture do not condone rape of anyone in the world.

God... if it exists... never had any saying in the matter.

[Randy Carson]

No one's making any case.
You're arguing that the book contains rules, supposedly handed down by the god character, which are, as seen from today's western POV, morally bankrupt - it is thus a sign that the morality followed by humans is changing with time.
Randy's arguing that his god always hands down morally solid rules well adjusted for those old times, but people, nowadays, misunderstand them.... the rules remain morally sound, the applicability just needs some tweaking.

You're both saying the same thing, while failing to define what the heck it means for something to BE Moral.... so each claims whatever s/he wants for that word.

No, poca; what you quoted was in response to Randy saying that his god doesn't condone rape, and that by saying he does, I'm lying.  It's a side conversation brought on by the objective/subjective morality debate.  As far as how that part of the debate is going, I agree with you.

When you say God condones rape, you lie.

You lie.

I have shown you the verses from the law which show how the Israelite men were to treat the women with respect, to allow them to mourn for the loss of their fathers and brothers and that they were to MARRY these women, which in the eyes of God you may recall, makes them one flesh as man and wife.

Now, it was 4,000 years ago, times WERE different and God did move the Israelites from a position of being total barbarians to being a cultured civilized people...just in time for Jesus to be incarnate among them.

But that doesn't suit the narrative you want to believe.

So, YOU LIE by taking a few verses out of context while ignoring the others which I brought to your attention.

Oh, sure...easy for you to claim "rape" from the comfort of your modern American culture with all of its laws and protections for its weaker members (formed largely by Christians, btw)...but if you were a woman living in a primitive region of the world 4,000 years ago, I'm pretty damn sure you would have considered yourself VERY FORTUNATE to have fallen into the hands of the Israelite army rather than those of the Canaanites.

And why would you consider yourself blessed, becca? Because God did not and does not condone rape.

[abaris]

God... if it exists... never had any saying in the matter.

But it could have. If it existed and if it went against it's grain.