What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[rexbeccarox]

Regarding the debate about rape and the God of the OT:

My opinion is that the text clearly condones rape, at least in certain circumstances. To convince yourself otherwise is to try and patch up one verse by finding another which contradicts it and convince yourself the horrible bit is negated; or to weave a ridiculous narrative in your head that somehow justifies it. CL however takes a different approach, to deny it ever actually happened. I much prefer this last approach, partly because I agree that it didn't happen (at least not anything like as written) and partly because there is then no need to justify it as a real story and so defend the immorality. To an atheist it's very hard to understand how someone can think the bible is the word of God yet contains things that are totally wrong, or allegories for...?... no idea what they could possibly be allegories for. But this clearly works for CL, and the result is she comes out able to keep her morality regarding rape being wrong. Even though I can't begin to understand the thought processes, the end result is she is firmly against rape, and that's the most important thing.

The OT God is evil, through and through. Virtually everything he does I would associate with an evil fascist dictator, just one who happens to be magical as well.

Now, most civilized people feel very strongly rape is wrong. So that means they must make some sort of excuses for why the bible clearly condones it. That's fine, as long as your end result is that you say rape is wrong, I don't much care what mental hoops you have to jump through to override your sacred text. The danger for any particular Christian is that they may know rape is wrong, but end up having to partially justify it in order to preserve their belief that their morality actually comes from the bible. That is sickening, and a clear example of religion warping morality and sucking us back to the dark ages.

However, some people may really think rape is OK. In that case all they have to do is refer to the text as is, and they have instant righteous justification, at least in the eyes of anyone who takes the text seriously. That is the scariest part of all.

I'm not arguing with C_L over whether rape is wrong; I'm arguing with Randy, who condones it, or at least apologizes for it. C_L has made it very clear, at least on her own (or the RCC's) terms, that she thinks rape is wrong. Randy has not done such.

[Catholic_Lady]

Oh, sorry.

To make these decisions.

To make what decisions?

Infallible decisions on faith and morals. It's rare and hasn't happened for a long time, but you never know...

[Longhorn]

Having been an active Catholic my whole life, I can tell you that Catholicism is not about guilt.

Yeah, like fucking hell it isn't.

[Catholic_Lady]

Regarding the debate about rape and the God of the OT:

My opinion is that the text clearly condones rape, at least in certain circumstances. To convince yourself otherwise is to try and patch up one verse by finding another which contradicts it and convince yourself the horrible bit is negated; or to weave a ridiculous narrative in your head that somehow justifies it. CL however takes a different approach, to deny it ever actually happened. I much prefer this last approach, partly because I agree that it didn't happen (at least not anything like as written) and partly because there is then no need to justify it as a real story and so defend the immorality. To an atheist it's very hard to understand how someone can think the bible is the word of God yet contains things that are totally wrong, or allegories for...?... no idea what they could possibly be allegories for. But this clearly works for CL, and the result is she comes out able to keep her morality regarding rape being wrong. Even though I can't begin to understand the thought processes, the end result is she is firmly against rape, and that's the most important thing.

The OT God is evil, through and through. Virtually everything he does I would associate with an evil fascist dictator, just one who happens to be magical as well.

Now, most civilized people feel very strongly rape is wrong. So that means they must make some sort of excuses for why the bible clearly condones it. That's fine, as long as your end result is that you say rape is wrong, I don't much care what mental hoops you have to jump through to override your sacred text. The danger for any particular Christian is that they may know rape is wrong, but end up having to partially justify it in order to preserve their belief that their morality actually comes from the bible. That is sickening, and a clear example of religion warping morality and sucking us back to the dark ages.

However, some people may really think rape is OK. In that case all they have to do is refer to the text as is, and they have instant righteous justification, at least in the eyes of anyone who takes the text seriously. That is the scariest part of all.

I'm not arguing with C_L over whether rape is wrong; I'm arguing with Randy, who condones it, or at least apologizes for it.  C_L has made it very clear, at least on her own (or the RCC's) terms, that she thinks rape is wrong.  Randy has not done such.

I'm sure Randy believes rape is immoral. He'd be going against Church teaching if he didn't, but most importantly, he's not an evil person.

[robvalue]

Becca: Oh sure. I was adding that bit in about CL to show the different strategies people take. I was agreeing with you that the bible condones rape, that's obvious. Clearly any kind of rape is wrong, it's ones of the most clear cut examples of morality. I don't know what Randy is going on about, he either thinks rape is OK or has very strange ideas about what is and isn't rape. As an infalibilist (new word) he's caught between a rock and a hard place; he must defend the indefensible. I hope that he doesn't really believe what he is saying and wouldn't put it into practice.

[Ravenshire]

To make what decisions?

Infallible decisions on faith and morals. It's rare and hasn't happened for a long time, but you never know...

It's convenient that he can only make "infallible" decisions on subjects where he cannot be proven right or wrong.

[rexbeccarox]

To make what decisions?

Infallible decisions on faith and morals. It's rare and hasn't happened for a long time, but you never know...

You never know... what, exactly? And why would you trust someone who is fallible until he claims otherwise? That's pretty circular, and completely untrustworthy. What if, say, the pope said one day, "ok- I'm declaring myself infallible. Everybody is now to worship Satan." Or what about... I dunno... the fact that a bunch of popes have denied the idea of papal infallibility full stop? Popes: the people who are supposed to be able to proclaim their own infallibility, for chrissakes.

So, really, truly, honestly: what is the point of the pope?

[rexbeccarox]

I'm not arguing with C_L over whether rape is wrong; I'm arguing with Randy, who condones it, or at least apologizes for it.  C_L has made it very clear, at least on her own (or the RCC's) terms, that she thinks rape is wrong.  Randy has not done such.

I'm sure Randy believes rape is immoral. He'd be going against Church teaching if he didn't, but most importantly, he's not an evil  person.

You should talk to Randy; he's made none of that clear to anyone here.

[Ravenshire]

You really need to quit conflating self defense and defense. They are very much two different things.

Ok. During the invasion of Iraq, a war we've both agreed is unjust, a squad of soldiers are given a mission, and all the orders are lawful. The mission requires they kill enemy soldiers, not in defense of anything, but as part of the objective of the mission. They've been given lawful orders and under the Unified Code of Military Justice could be court marshaled for refusing the orders, is it moral for them to carry out those orders, killing Iraqi soldiers to do so?

I made the distinction in post 1501:

"Just to clarify, this is what I believe self defense to be -

If someone is attacking you (or another), you have the right to exert as much force as is necessary to stop them. No more, and no less. If that amount of force results in the offenders death, if is justified and not immoral."

Personally? I don't think it's a moral act. But cannot speak for the culpability of these men/women given the situation they're in. My husband is military, and while his job is not combative, I still have respect for the men and women who put their lives on the line to serve their country, despite a bad leader ordering them to go to war.

You didn't make a distinction, you conflated defense of self and defense of others and it has caused no end of confusion. They are two very different things.

I'm at a loss as to what to say. You say you respect our troops for putting their lives on the line, but you believe they're acting immorally if they follow lawful orders that require them to kill in an offensive action. I think I've sprained an ankle trying to follow your mental gymnastics on this issue.

[Catholic_Lady]

Infallible decisions on faith and morals. It's rare and hasn't happened for a long time, but you never know...

You never know... what, exactly?  And why would you trust someone who is fallible until he claims otherwise?  That's pretty circular, and completely untrustworthy.  What if, say, the pope said one day, "ok- I'm declaring myself infallible.  Everybody is now to worship Satan." Or what about... I dunno... the fact that a bunch of popes have denied the idea of papal infallibility full stop?  Popes: the people who are supposed to be able to proclaim their own infallibility, for chrissakes.

So, really, truly, honestly: what is the point of the pope?

Sorry I did not make myself clear. What I meant was not that the pope says "ok, I'm infallible now!" But rather, he says "I have an infallible announcement to make in regards to faith or morals." ...and then he does so.

Like I said, this is very very rare.

Even though Popes are people who are still capable of making mistakes and acting immorally, we believe that when it comes to making infallible announcements, they literally cannot do so unless it is directly inspired by the holy spirit.

---

I'm sure Randy believes rape is immoral. He'd be going against Church teaching if he didn't, but most importantly, he's not an evil  person.

You should talk to Randy; he's made none of that clear to anyone here.

will do