What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Homeless Nutter]

Honestly. Randy has already said that he believes rape is wrong. What difference does it make whether he believes in a literal interpretation of the OT or not? At the end of the day you both agree with each other that rape is wrong, and in the grand scheme of things, that's all that matters.

Nope. There are plenty more things that matter. You may understand it some day.
As long as this stupid book is revered by people - there's still a good chance humanity can fall right back into the bronze age mindset.

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, but he still gives us free will. He could force us to act a certain way, but He chooses to give us free will. So He has to work with that.

Oh, I see. In other words - god CAN make a rock so heavy, he himself won't be able to lift it.

It doesn't really matter. Whatever we say to you is just going to get criticized anyway.

---

Honestly. Randy has already said that he believes rape is wrong. What difference does it make whether he believes in a literal interpretation of the OT or not? At the end of the day you both agree with each other that rape is wrong, and in the grand scheme of things, that's all that matters.

Nope. There are plenty more things that matter. You may understand it some day.

I meant in regards to this discussion about rape in the OT.

[Homeless Nutter]

It doesn't really matter. Whatever we say to you is just going to get criticized anyway.

---

Sure - as long as what you're saying is illogical and self-contradictory.

[Homeless Nutter]

I meant in regards to this discussion about rape in the OT.

It's important to state that "the good book" is not so good to protect women from being raped by their husbands. Billions of people still justify their atrocities, using OT.

[LostLocke]

If their true concern is for her financial well being, it would make far more sense to have a law that says a woman's rapist must provide for her, instead of forcing her to spend the rest of her life with her attacker.
If no one will marry her because she is now "spoiled goods" (which would probably be the same if she had consensual sex before marriage), then that's just backasswards thinking. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' or 'dirty' about a woman who's been raped, and the men who wrote that law or wouldn't marry her just need to get the fuck over themselves.

Again, you need to think this through.

Let's say the man who claimed the girl as a spoil of war was in his mid 20's maybe 30. Suppose the girls was 15 or 16. Lifespans were shorter and women outlive men for genetic (and reasons of war and occupations). So this guy dies 20 years later leaving this now 35-year-old woman with no children and no income.

Destitution.

Unless she got married. With someone she wanted to marry and who wanted to marry her. It's not an all-or-nothing, she marries her rapist or she doesn't marry at all, deal.

[Randy Carson]

Excuse me...have I been rude to you?

It's nothing personal. Your views and the way you'll say anything in order to hold on to them - they are sickening.

If you stop to read the articles that I posted on this subject (or any one of the DOZENS of similar articles that you can find with a quick Google search), you will discover that it's not me "saying anything" to hold onto my views...the answers I have provided are solid exegesis of the scriptures by people who have spent more than a few minutes considering them.

The challenge for you, of course, is that this exegesis doesn't resonate with the "moral monster" view you have of God.

[Randy Carson]

Again, you need to think this through.

Let's say the man who claimed the girl as a spoil of war was in his mid 20's maybe 30. Suppose the girls was 15 or 16. Lifespans were shorter and women outlive men for genetic (and reasons of war and occupations). So this guy dies 20 years later leaving this now 35-year-old woman with no children and no income.

Destitution.

Unless she got married. With someone she wanted to marry and who wanted to marry her. It's not an all-or-nothing, she marries her rapist or she doesn't marry at all, deal.

You've read Akin's article?

[Homeless Nutter]

If you stop to read the articles that I posted on this subject (or any one of the DOZENS of similar articles that you can find with a quick Google search), you will discover that it's not me "saying anything" to hold onto my views...the answers I have provided are solid exegesis of the scriptures by people who have spent more than a few minutes considering them.

The challenge for you, of course, is that this exegesis doesn't resonate with the "moral monster" view you have of God.

Oh - I have no doubt you haven't come up with all this yourself. Still - you're the one, who preaches this nonsense here, to people (atheists), that you know are bound to find it offensive.

[Metis]

This is incorrect. The book I quoted was written in 1929 before JPII was pope, by a man named Heribert Jone. Theology of the Body is a different book. True sodomy is defined by climaxing outside of the vagina, regardless of where exactly. That is still considered a sin.

I can't speak for the SSPX since I am not associated with them and know nothing about them.

I don't doubt the terms long predate The Theology of the Body Catholic_Lady but the fact remains that both Imperfect and Perfect Sodomy were sins that were to be confessed and refrained from preforming. Since The Theology of the Body heterosexual couples are no longer in sin if they engage in Imperfect Sodomy.

I know you're not SSPX, I simply tend to refer to their works fairly often when I'm debating Catholics since they're excellent reference works. For those who don't know the SSPX are an ultra conservative Catholic group who believe that Vatican II was not a valid council of the Catholic Church and all changes since that time are of the devil. For that reason they've got a very keen eye for "blasphemies" preformed by the mainstream Catholic Church and they're very helpful for me in finding points where the Catholic Church has done U-turns on doctrine over the past sixty years or so.

Prior to Vatican II I have to look elsewhere but for events after then they do make many valid points. I still think they're silly though, they claim to be loyal to the Pope but decry him as an infidel and some even pray for his death at the same time go figure.

[tonechaser77]

I don't have the same understanding as Randy in regards to the OT, but I think what he's saying is that God was putting Himself down at the level of the people/culture of the time in order to integrate Himself slowly.

Yes. As I said previously, God met the Israelites where they were at and began to form them into a better people. This process took time.

Randy, a god who takes his time implementing a process forgoes the suffering of everyone else who is going through the situation. How could a loving benevolent god think this was the best possible way? If me, a finite mortal being can think of a better way to execute this master plan while minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness what does that say about god?