What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[The Grand Nudger]

@Nope

"Allegory!!!!!" in 3........2.........1.......

[Randy Carson]

Before I wrap it up here, I also want to once again point out that the most important thing to remember are a couple of Jesus' greatest commandments: Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemy. Does it really make sense that a person who tells us to love everyone like ourselves, including our worst enemies, would condone treating people like property?

Excellent point, CL. They cannot see the forest for the trees.

I, too, went to the site rob linked to, and I read a good portion of it. I had the same reaction you had...both that site and rob have missed the point completely. No surprise there. This forum is populated largely by folks who either got little to no Christian education when they were growing up (like rob, for example) or have spent years in churches with really incomplete (and erroneous) theology.

Notice the following taken from evilbible.com:

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

   If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years.  Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.  If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year.  But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.  If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.  But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children.  I would rather not go free.'  If he does this, his master must present him before God.  Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl.  After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.  (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

rob seems to have missed the part where slavery was limited to six years. Not exactly the kind of slavery we had in this country, was it? And the primary purpose of such slavery was to pay off debt. IOW, it was a means by which those who were poor could SURVIVE.

evilbible goes on to make much of the fact that the male slave might become a slave for life, but this was AT HIS OWN CHOOSING. Again, not what the movie "Twelve Years a Slave" portrayed of slavery in the US, is it?

If the Catholic Church's position on slavery past and present are of REAL interest to rob, he can Google till his heart is content. The truth is out there.

CL, do you see how this Whack-a-Mole game is played? First, the gang took issue with pedophile priests. Then, after I offered some agreement but also defense of the more hypocritical outrage, the Magdalen Laundries became the topic du jour. I countered that. Next, we're here dealing with slavery and the "God is an immoral monster" theme. Tomorrow....

Well, you get the idea. That's job security for us apologists, I guess. So much ignorance, so little time.

[Whateverist]

@Nope

"Allegory!!!!!" in 3........2.........1.......

Allegory for the win!

It is truly allegory all the way down.

[SteelCurtain]

Mike-

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

So I'm disappointed to see you speaking so disdainfully of my posting of snippets from the Catechism. Presumably, you are interested in hearing what Christians (Catholics specifically) think on a given topic, and if the Catechism presents a point of view more eloquently and accurately than I might do on my own, why the objections?

Of course, if you aren't interested in a discussion with Catholics about these things, why bother reading these threads at all?

I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think. The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

It's why C_L has fit in so well here, and has a 100+ page thread yet I haven't had to send her a single PM despite your blustering buffoonery your first couple of weeks here that we just want to hate on all Catholics and don't want to hear any other point of view. Your persecution complex fits the narrative that your life must needs follow, else your cookie cutter world which the Catholic Church has laid out for you (Catechismicly!) doesn't look right.

The way I phrased it was more tongue in cheek than anything, but you do take it to a new level, Randy.

[Whateverist]

So it's still your position that since I quoted you in my post, that I was referring directly to you, even after making it very clear I was speaking generally and not about you personally?

Lets just say we prefer to interpret what fundamentalists say literally.

[Pyrrho]

It is -sickness-, and that's the problem, not that it's "sinful".

It's god sacrificing himself to himself for a sin he himself created. The trinity takes this to a whole new level of stupid. So we don't even need to go into the details to wave this away, apart from this thread not being about it.

Yes.

Christianity is layer upon layer of stupid.

[Mr.wizard]

Randy,

Nobody missed the point that slavery was limited to six years ( as if that makes it ok). Yes the slave could leave after 6 years unless the slave owner gave him a wife which they always would do, If he chose to leave he would leave his wife and family behind who would remain slaves. If he chose to stay with his family he would remain a slave for life as well as his children and their children and so on and so on. What slave owner did was make a slave chose between his family and his freedom, which is incredibly sick. If you are going to defend this disgusting mistreatment of human beings then let me be the first to say, Fuck You!

[abaris]

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

Still the same mistake of lumping all atheists together. Personally I don't give a shit about what Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins think. They're not my role models. What matters are my own thoughts.

[Randy Carson]

Mike-

I'm interested in what atheists think, and I would have no problem with you posting passages from Hitchens or Harris or Dawkins as you think appropriate. As I said to Nestor in the Gary Habermas Q & A thread, I would LOVE to go hear a good debate between Ehrman and a skilled Christian representative.

So I'm disappointed to see you speaking so disdainfully of my posting of snippets from the Catechism. Presumably, you are interested in hearing what Christians (Catholics specifically) think on a given topic, and if the Catechism presents a point of view more eloquently and accurately than I might do on my own, why the objections?

Of course, if you aren't interested in a discussion with Catholics about these things, why bother reading these threads at all?

I am interested in what Catholics think. I am not interested in what the Catholic Church thinks you should think.

You imply a dichotomy where none exists. I agree with all teachings of the Catholic Church.

The disdain comes from the idea that it is so difficult for you to form your own ideas as part of a conversation. Being in the moment and present within a discussion seems to be very difficult for you. Hence your prepared Word documents and your incredulity and sheer inability to cope when someone doesn't follow your expectations. (Hence the AIDS example, which you conveniently dropped) And so, instead of succinctly telling us in your own words what you believe, you copypasta half of the catechism.

Rubbish. The fact that I have some of MY thoughts put down in Word is because I have been doing this a very, very long time. Why reinvent the wheel?

Case in point...Spacetime joined the forum a few days ago. Same arguments, different day. How foolish is it to type my fingers off telling him in different words what I have already told you and others.

Now, let's be honest: you anti-christers (hey, that has a ring to it) do something similar...instead of even bothering to post AT ALL (which is what I do), you simply say, "Look, asshole, this has all been discussed before. Do a search in the forum and stop wasting everyone's time."

Wow. THAT makes for great discussion, doesn't it? But I'm given that kind of response frequently...especially when I was newer here.

It's why C_L has fit in so well here, and has a 100+ page thread yet I haven't had to send her a single PM despite your blustering buffoonery your first couple of weeks here that we just want to hate on all Catholics and don't want to hear any other point of view.

rexbeccarox has. Twice.

And let's not kid one another: CL's avatar has got more than a few of the guys here dialing the aggression in their responses to her way, way down.

Your persecution complex fits the narrative that your life must needs follow, else your cookie cutter world which the Catholic Church has laid out for you (Catechismicly!) doesn't look right.

The way I phrased it was more tongue in cheek than anything, but you do take it to a new level, Randy.

If it is your opinion that I'm following the teaching of the Catholic Church at a whole new level, then I am honored. I would disagree, but thank you.

[Huggy Bear]

Fuck, Huggy, you've got your head so far up your own ass...

The very thing you're accusing him of being a hypocrite of, he apologized for and said he shouldn't have done. Had you said that, there would be no issue.

Your childishness is just on a level all its own.

Except I've made it clear multiple times that I wasn't speaking of him personally, yet I'm being disingenuous. If I had referenced him personally then I would indeed own him an apology.

I like how he can submit a profanity laced post full of insults yet I'm the one perceived as childish