What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

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.

(emphasis is mine)

So good to see that she gets some say in whether or not she marries the brute who slaughtered her parents just a month prior.

Oh... wait...

[Brakeman]

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED A THIRD TIME. TIME TO LET IT GO.

I know the forum decided that only positive Kudos were to be available but posts like these make me want a "DISHONEST AS FUCK" button to describe some of his posts.

[Catholic_Lady]

I was showing the concept of how an act can remain the same objectively, while the people who commit these acts can have different degrees of culpability.

Not trying to get you to agree, just wanna make sure you understand the concept.

Oh, believe me. I understand the concept behind what you call objective morality. I just find it morally reprehensible.

Good. That's all I ask for.

---

I believe killing is only moral in self defense. I'm sorry if you find this sad.

Killing in defense of others whose lives are not in immediate danger would be immoral in your eyes, yes?

When I say self defense I mean defense of yourself or another innocent person from an attacker. By that I mean exerting as much force as is necessary to stop an attacker from killing you (or someone else). Not more, not less. If you're in a situation where saving a life means all you need to do is punch the attacker in the face, for example, you should try to do that rather than straight up kill him if it is unnecessary. Always try to preserve life when/where you can. I'm sorry you find this sad.

[Jenny A]

---

That's where you didn't read and perhaps didn't put into your original post, the fine print:

" I will listen to them and reexamine my thinking.  But I would never presume that anyone, anywhere, or any institution anywhere is always right. "

If the professor really is right, and he often is, then I'm going to change my mind. I will probably assume his data is accurate, but the reasoning I look at on my own.  The interesting thing is though, if he didn't change my mind, I've never had a brilliant professor not respect a rational rebuttal.  Twice, just twice, I've changed a professor's mind.

---

Sounds like we agree on this.

It does if you are no where near as church authority absolutist as you sounded in the post I originally responded to.

[IATIA]

---

Try verses:

Deut. 20:10-14 (command about attacking the town and taking women for themselves)
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

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.

Deut. 22:23-24 (rules for stoning a rape victim to death)
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife."

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?

Numbers 31:18 (what do you think keeping virgins for themselves entailed?)
"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man.  Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."

Marrying them according to the law. See the passage quoted above.

THE LIE HAS BEEN EXPOSED AGAIN. TIME TO LET IT GO.

Deut. 22:28-29 (rules about a rape victim being made to marry her rapist)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

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.

---

rape:

Any involuntary sexual act in which a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will.

You are going to try to tell us that these kidnapped women/girls were consenting?  You are full of shit (and I believe lying just to argue your fallacious point)

[Bob Kelso]

Could God force us to do something? Sure.

But He has chosen to give us free will and to honor it.

How much resentment would we have against God if He didn't?

Considering the whole Pharoah/hardened heart issue that I mentioned in passing; God already activated the cheat codes once mate.

With an allegory dismissal incoming- Why do you accept the concept of a God that is so inept at being, well, a God?

"Hell, if I just come out and tell these people what's acceptable in the grand scheme of things they'll think I'm being pushy or something. Better take it slow and steady, it's not like they'll rape, pillage and murder everything in sight."

{THREE HOURS LATER}

"Shit. Well... You see what I'm dealing with."

[abaris]

I just checked and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary was formally proclaimed in Munificentissimus Deus on November 1st 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary . Pius XII proclaimed it as a demonstration of Papal power, after WWII the Catholic Church was arguably at the strongest it had ever been since the glory days of Pius IX, hence why freethinkers like Paul Blanshard came out with books in the US during the 50's "warning" people about the increasing power the RC held over US society. The sexual revolution put an end to that of course.

But that Pius IX in 1854:

"We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful...."

[rexbeccarox]

Because you say so?  Because the Catholic church says so?  You can't think of any situation in which it is morally right to steal?

It is acceptable for a starving person to steal food, but not more than is necessary.

From the Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.191

Tell that to C_L; she thinks theft is an objective immorality.

[rexbeccarox]

I myself question Dr. Brightlight, and try to verify what he taught; if I can't verify, then I continue with "I don't know" and "hopefully one day I can find out".  That's what everyone should do.  Thinking critically is one of the awesome things about being human, as Jenny pointed out.  It's too bad you and your ilk don't practice it as much as you should.

"Ilk"? I have "ilk"?

becca, it would be great, I suppose, if we all re-examined everything we learn in life, but as anyone who has ever sat through even a freshman year of college can attest, no, what we're really doing is accepting what the professors tell us because they are the professors: iow, they are knowledgable and reliable.

Same with the Catholic Church. (Yes, it is.)

Actually, no. I sat through a crap ton of university, and I never once just accepted what any of my professors had to say. In fact, I pride myself on the fact that I triple and sometimes quadruple check everything I care about or need to know about. Speak for yourself; it's getting really old, your telling others how they think or live their lives.

[Catholic_Lady]

It is acceptable for a starving person to steal food, but not more than is necessary.

From the Catechism:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.191

Tell that to C_L; she thinks theft is an objective immorality.

"There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods."

With that being said, I was incorrect in failing to make this distinction on my response to your post. I stand corrected, and I apologize.