What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[robvalue]

A couple of thoughts:

What is this about God "meeting" the people he was going to teach all about his morals? That implies they were seperated from him for a long time, and at least they were not aware he existed at all before that point. Was God hiding from them? Why did he sit there hiding while they got so fucked up he had to condone rape and slavery just to get them to listen to him and not just ignore him? This is really a feeble and inattentive God.

Second, can I ask if I have this right, CL? If so, I think it may give you pause for thought:

You say some things are inherently immoral. You seem to have said same gender sex is among those things. You also said that having normal, married sex is not inherently wrong regardless of age; that there is no age of consent which make it inherently wrong.

Have I understood this correctly? If so, me marrying a 4 year old and having consensual sex with her (I explain what sex is and she agrees) is not inherently wrong; but two adult men who are married, in love, committed and with proper understanding and consent having anal sex is inherently wrong.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted. If I haven't, what do you think of this conclusion?

[Faith No More]

Randy's point is that if God had come out and hit everyone with all the morals all at once, it wouldn't have worked. People wouldn't have listened. People would have just dismissed it all right away and never changed. So God had to do it slowly for it to actually work. That's all Randy is saying here. I don't see why that should make you want to vomit.

(i'm going to keep saying this is randy's position not mine so that I don't get accused of believing things I don't actually believe)

And my point is that God, as an extremely powerful being, would have known a million ways to get the Israelites to accept all the morals at once. Hell, he could have just poofed it into their brain.

What makes the vomit rise in my throat is that both you and Randy seem to think that forcing a woman to share a bed with her rapist for a lifetime, probably bearing his children, is somehow acceptable under any context.

[Ravenshire]

Rob, what it boils down to is "Whatever gawd says is moral is what I believe is moral." The frightening part of that is if the pope has an attack of infallibility and proclaims that god has revealed that murder of unbelievers is actually moral, then I guess all the unbelievers had better move to highly secular places.

[rexbeccarox]

I dunno, FNM. I'm pretty sure C_L has made it clear she doesn't feel that way. Randy, on the other hand...

[Faith No More]

I don't see how she couldn't feel that way. Is she saying god's punishment was wrong?

[robvalue]

Rob, what it boils down to is "Whatever gawd says is moral is what I believe is moral." The frightening part of that is if the pope has an attack of infallibility and proclaims that god has revealed that murder of unbelievers is actually moral, then I guess all the unbelievers had better move to highly secular places.

That's a very good point. I wonder CL, what would you think if the Pope did infallibly announce something horrific like rape is now not only moral but actively encouraged by God? Or all forms of killing are now moral and encouraged? Would that make you quit being a catholic?

[Ravenshire]

I dunno, FNM.  I'm pretty sure C_L has made it clear she doesn't feel that way.  Randy, on the other hand...

Randy is a shit stain on the magic underwear of religion, and a coward. C_L seems to be a decent sort, just a bit misguided.

[Catholic_Lady]

Second, can I ask if I have this right, CL? If so, I think it may give you pause for thought:

You say some things are inherently immoral. You seem to have said same gender sex is among those things. You also said that having normal, married sex is not inherently wrong regardless of age; that there is no age of consent which make it inherently wrong.

(my bold)

I did not say that. :-)

What I said is that there is nothing written in stone in regards to what the age of consent needs to be. The catechism does not say "the age of consent should be _____ and anything under that is inherently immoral." This is one of those things that may be subjective and depends on the culture, at least to a certain extent. Of course, it still needs to have a certain level of reasonableness. A four year old obviously is waayyy on the extreme and if a particular society honestly tried to say this was ok, I'd say there is something seriously wrong with them.

But let's take the culture in the middle east 2000 years ago. Girls consented to marriage at age 12-14ish.

Does this sound too young to me? Heck yes! But I have no idea what the girls were like 2000 years ago. Maybe they were light years more mature at that age than the girls here in 21st century America. Maybe people died a lot younger, so they had to mature and start families a lot earlier to ensure the best for the species.

Even in Europe and much of South America, the age of consent is 14. So the 12-14 might not be that unreasonable in a time and place where things are very different and people may mature much faster. But I can't say for sure either way because I was not there.

Does that help clear up some misunderstanding? :-)

---

Randy's point is that if God had come out and hit everyone with all the morals all at once, it wouldn't have worked. People wouldn't have listened. People would have just dismissed it all right away and never changed. So God had to do it slowly for it to actually work. That's all Randy is saying here. I don't see why that should make you want to vomit.

(i'm going to keep saying this is randy's position not mine so that I don't get accused of believing things I don't actually believe)

And my point is that God, as an extremely powerful being, would have known a million ways to get the Israelites to accept all the morals at once.  Hell, he could have just poofed it into their brain.  

What makes the vomit rise in my throat is that both you and Randy seem to think that forcing a woman to share a bed with her rapist for a lifetime, probably bearing his children, is somehow acceptable under any context.

Now hold on just a second here. I have stated multiple times that I do not condone this, and neither do I have the same opinions on the OT as Randy does. Please read carefully and try not to accuse me of things that I never said and don't believe.

---

---

Rob, what it boils down to is "Whatever gawd says is moral is what I believe is moral." The frightening part of that is if the pope has an attack of infallibility and proclaims that god has revealed that murder of unbelievers is actually moral, then I guess all the unbelievers had better move to highly secular places.

That's a very good point. I wonder CL, what would you think if the Pope did infallibly announce something horrific like rape is now not only moral but actively encouraged by God? Or all forms of killing are now moral and encouraged? Would that make you quit being a catholic?

This would never happen because those things go against the most basic and fundamental Church teachings.

But theoretically speaking, I would definitely cease being a Catholic.

[robvalue]

CL: Thanks very much for your answers. I'm most impressed you answered that hypothetical without any sort of dodge! And I'm impressed that you would vote with your feet. That might not sound like much to you, but there are theists who I've talked to for months who will never answer such a simple question without reams of caveats, dismissals and deflections.

I agree totally that the age of consent is subjectively moral. (Of course, I think everything is subjectively moral!) However, you say there must be some sensible limit. Of course I agree. How about the age of sexual maturity, whatever that may be in a given time/culture? Would you agree that it is inherently wrong to marry and have sex with someone who hasn't reached sexual maturity?

[Catholic_Lady]

I also feel like I need to speak up for Randy here.

While he and I have a different understanding of the OT stories, he has made it perfectly clear that....

1. He does not condone rape.

2. He does not believe God condones rape.

3. He believes God had to integrate Himself slowly into the morality of the people of the time, because they would not have listened if they were hit with all the laws on morality all at once.

^You don't have to agree with Randy's assessment of the OT, but to say he condones rape and/or believes God condones rape is just dishonest.