What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Rhondazvous]

I don’t agree that there is any universal consensus on anything being good or bad. Not even murder.

What is murder? If it is merely ending another person’s life then it is obviously not universally accepted that this is wrong in any but a personal way. Most people believe it is wrong for someone else to take their life simply because they don’t want to die. And it was from this unwillingness to die that laws evolved in civilized societies making it wrong to murder. Still, even the most civilized societies will disagree about what constitutes murder when some redefinition proves convenient. Civilized societies, for the most part, value ownership because people have found that it is better to have things than to not have things, including life. Where there is no sense of ownership, there can be no theft. If a group of people are not given ownership of their own lives by society, then their lives cannot be stolen.

Most people on this planet cannot protect what they have so without law they have no way to keep what they have. Our laws evolved from the realization that without them, banditry and family feuds will rule the day and this makes life and commerce nearly impossible for all of us.

[Mr.wizard]

So, your god must then be immoral.  That is acceptable.  How does catholicism justify worshipping an immoral god?

Like I said, the Church is silent on the interpretation of these bible passages (leaving it up for the reader to form their own understanding). The Church also teaches that rape is immoral and that God does not change. Using this information, I personally believe that these stories are allegorical. I do not believe God commanded the men to forcefully marry these virgins.

I can only speak for myself and how I have come to understand this.

---

Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it still in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

I know that these passages don't portray rape as immoral. I was speaking about the Church. The Church does consider rape immoral, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

---

It's true what she's saying though, I suspect Randy is a former Protestant as I can detect a strong American Evangelical vibe to much of his personal theology. It's not heretical but it's rather different from the more traditional, ethereal/indefinable approach of Catholic_Lady which is more usual amongst "Cradle Catholics".

Thank you for clearing this up for Wizard on my behalf. I appreciate it.

Wait what? You just said you think the story is allegorical and that god did not command these men to rape. I pointed out that whether you think the story is allegorical or literal god was clearly commanding the men to rape.

[Metis]

Wow. That's twice that you indicated that I got at least part of my answer right. Do you have any idea how rare that experience has been for me in this forum? I'm almost at a loss for words. But maybe you're just being kind.

Nah, credit where credit is due Randy    It's not a point scoring thing for me anyway.

The encyclicals are obviously easy enough to locate. I just didn't realize you were quoting an encyclical when you asserted that Pius XII wouldn't condemn Hitler until after he had died.

Well that's because Pius XII was an appeaser and was very wary of offending Hitler, not to mention he always considered the Soviets to be a greater threat. The last one addressing the German Reich was Mit brennender Sorge (as I mentioned the one penned by Achille Ratti never was officially proclaimed) and from then until March 19 1945 when Pius XII released Ben Volontieri the Papacy was more or less silent on the matter . Mother Pascalina amongst others did do much to help Italian Jews, but that was always off the books without official sanction.

Is it your opinion that the non-believers here have anything like the formal training you have? If not, why bother? There are other venues where your intellect and education will be put to better tests.

I doubt it, who would want to waste their life getting a degree in what most here would consider folklore or mythology? I didn't really come here to have academic debates, I came mostly looking for other non-believers to chat to since I spend the vast majority of my time surrounded by believers. It's nice having somewhere to talk about other things with similar minded people.

Catholics have Catholic get togethers don't they? What's so strange about me wanting to talk to other non believers?

If there is no God, then for what purpose does the pope need to control us? And if there is a God, again, for what purpose does the pope need to control us?

Finally, has your study focused primarily on the historical issues surrounding the Church? Or would you say you have a solid formation in scripture also?

Power I personally think. For much the same reason men have always waged war, they want fame, they want wealth, they want to have power over their fellow man. I think Catholicism has over the centuries developed an increasingly autocratic bent, really rather reminiscent of the late Roman Empire. You ask why the Pope needs to control you? I don't think he actually does anymore on a financial front, the Vatican bank propped up with the funds from the Lateran Treaty and the nothing short of miraculous fund raising powers of Cardinal Spellman barely more than half a century ago has ensured the Catholic Church no longer requires it's members to prop it up financially as it sits as one of the biggest players on the stock market. What the curia may need people for is support, money's all well and good but you never get what you want done without boots on the ground acting out your ideas.

That said while religion is a curious device and can be set up for a purpose sometimes it supersedes it. We know Shinto was set up solely to promote awe and reverence of the Japanese emperor who claimed to be the son of God. When the Emperor finally falls after World War two and renounces his claim does the religion end? No, it carries on. Now it has no purpose, its values and rituals are so deeply ingrained in Japanese culture it rolls on ahead without a pilot. The Catholic Church is organized in a manner suited to a large fiefdom, now it commands a far larger population but without the temporal power to force it's laws. Its lead to an interesting change of tactic alright, moving from direct force to financial lobbying and influencing politicians indirectly. It has adapted better than most, and I suspect it will do so for centuries to come as it devises new ways to explain changes within.

I don't profess to know what the Pope wants, Francis appears to me a rather amiable man. I don't doubt it is likely he truly believes he is doing the best he can for humanity. Just because one is in the leading position doesn't mean one always understands everything about how what you command came to be. Forgive me if this sounds vague Randy, Religion is a difficult subject to grasp anyway (most Religious Studies/Theology students would argue it's actually a non-category since it can be used to describe just about anything) but religious motives are far less concrete, and the line between a divinely inspired and mundane reason for something are often fairly blurred and subjective.

As for my training? My Bachelors was more historical based with about a third of my time spent on scripture. When I attended the Orthodox seminary my studies were almost exclusivley scriptural and doctrinal, but I did elect to do that as well since I felt my understanding of Church History was already very broad.

[Metis]

While other nations all around them were ACTUALLY raping women captured in war, Israel was commanded to behave differently. BY GOD.

So there is good rape and bad rape.  I never heard that before.  Please enlighten us.

A good rape is when the guy who boinks you is hot and you'd do him anyway, but a bad one is when you get a toothless minger?

[Simon Moon]

Well I have to say if that's the case I'm glad to hear it : Won't lie it's kind of a refreshing change from some of the believers I've spoken to before. Most of what you've said is fine, but usually anything involving the under 16's or rape is going to upset well...anyone.

Well for the record, I definitely don't think rape is moral. It is, in fact, one of the things I have listed as inherently immoral.

As for all the bible talk about rape, I will say that the Catholic Church is silent on the proper interpretation of many biblical passages, and Catholics are free to interpret them literally or allegorically. While I see them strictly as didactic fiction, Randy seems to have taken a more literal view. To us Catholics, regardless of some of the stories in the OT, the Church most certainly does teach that both slavery and rape are contrary to human dignity and thus immoral. And I think at the end of the day, that's really what matters. In the grand scheme of things, and as long as Randy and I both adhere to Church teaching, whether or not we interpret these stories in the same way, is just details.

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. 


That's some world class mental gymnastics you got going on there.

[Metis]

Ya sure I agree with that, but saying the story is allegorical does not address the morality that the story portrays. What message where bible writers trying to convey by writing those horrific stories.

Depends entirely who you ask, it's that subjective.

The thing I believe Randy is alluding to is the theory that the Bible is a continuous narrative, a "love story" as some believers describe it between God and man and the slowly developing efforts of man to find and understand his creator. Some bits are sweet, some are bitter but it slowly improves and matures over time like a fine wine.

I personally don't think the stories have a purpose, they're told for the sake of being told the same way other cultures have myths. The Greeks have Heracules, the Irish have Cu Cuchulain ; just a small story that unites them all under a common banner and communal identity. Very powerful when you think about it.

[Mr.wizard]

Ya sure I agree with that, but saying the story is allegorical does not address the morality that the story portrays. What message where bible writers trying to convey by writing those horrific stories.

Depends entirely who you ask, it's that subjective.

The thing I believe Randy is alluding to is the theory that the Bible is a continuous narrative, a "love story" as some believers describe it between God and man and the slowly developing efforts of man to find and understand his creator. Some bits are sweet, some are bitter but it slowly improves and matures over time like a fine wine.

I personally don't think the stories have a purpose, they're told for the sake of being told the same way other cultures have myths. The Greeks have Heracules, the Irish have Cu Cuchulain ; just a small story that unites them all under a common banner and communal identity. Very powerful when you think about it.

Yes I agree I've asked CL several times what those stories mean and she just keeps telling me she believes they are allegoric, which tells me nothing. That's why I said it seems like she is just avoiding the question. If she believes the stories are allegoric then she must have some belief about the message they are trying to convey.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

... any more.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

... and yet you don't have the guts to admit that morality is both subjective and relative, when this snippet gives the lie.

[Catholic_Lady]

Whether you view the story as allegorical or literal, it in no way portrays rape as immoral. Just saying that is allegorical does not answer the questions about why its sanctioned by god, it seems like just a way of avoiding the question.

It's true what she's saying though, I suspect Randy is a former Protestant as I can detect a strong American Evangelical vibe to much of his personal theology. It's not heretical but it's rather different from the more traditional, ethereal/indefinable approach of Catholic_Lady which is more usual amongst "Cradle Catholics".

By the way, you hit the nail on the head in regards to Randy and I. He's an ex protestant and I'm a cradle Catholic. Good job! Lol.