What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

You probably have me on ignore

The pussy seems to have put anyone on ignore who's questions can't be answered with "Yeah, but catechism!!!"

[rexbeccarox]

You probably have me on ignore

The pussy seems to have put anyone on ignore who's questions can't be answered with "Yeah, but catechism!!!"

... and staff, because

[Thumpalumpacus]

My point was just to show that Randy does not condone rape or believes God condones rape.

Randy may not believe your god condones rape, but most of us here do. Randy's verse citations aren't convincing, given the fact that even in those verses, moral considerations are subject to conditions and circumstances -- which, when you think about it, is simply another way of saying that morality is subjective.

I believe that you two worship a god who thinks of rape as an economic inconvenience, but not a moral problem. The Bible, in the verses we're seeing, seems to support that.

There is a verse asserting murder as an evil, ordering "thou shall not kill". There is a verse asserting lying as an evil, ordering, "thou shall not bear false witness".

Not only is there no verse saying "Thou shall not violate a woman" -- the verses on the topic address the rape of a woman as an economic hindrance, not as a moral failure. A couple can be put to death for being adulterous (Deu 22:22), but if he rapes a woman, he pays 50 shekels and is home free ... unless she's a war bride, in which case he can take her home and have his wicked way with her.

I don't care what Randy condones, and I don't care what Randy believes. The Bible demonstrates that Yahweh is not concerned with rape as a moral failing -- it is only an economical crime in the cited verses.

Nowhere in the Bible does your god say that rape is bad. Mixing fabrics: bad. Eating shellfish: bad. Raping a woman: harming another man to the extent of requiring compensation, but not morally bad. This is what the book says. You can be a Christian, but if you are one, you must either acknowledge or ignore that fact.

And so far, you seem to prefer to ignore the fact that the Bible regards rape as a property crime.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't know how. The argument I presented was Randy's, not mine. I have a different opinion on the OT.

You defended his point over and over acting as if it made all the sense in the world. My point is really quite simple. If gawd didn't condone rape, he should have set up the rules before their morality got so poor. Your gawd is all knowing, yeah?

I defended his point simply to show he neither condones rape, nor thinks God condones rape. That seemed very clear to me, but people were still accusing him of it for some reason, so I figured I'd clarify. It's not my argument, it's not what I think happened, so I have no answer for your question. Ask Randy.

[robvalue]

Wait, wait...

If there is supposed to be this objective morality which comes from God that he has somehow implanted in us so we know things like rape and slavery are wrong, why was he implanting people at the time of Jesus with a different set of morals so that they clearly didn't think or know slavery and rape are wrong? If God had just given them the morality they need, as is being claimed he does now, how come they so easily ignored it back then... and if it's so easy to ignore, seemingly dependent on the point in history you are at, then what's the point of it? Why has it taken 2000 years for it to "work properly"? Yes, even in the NT slavery is discussed as an ongoing practice and never criticised.

Did he have to use some sort of "learning curve" of morality? And if so, why on earth would he have to? If he's just putting the morality straight into you, why exactly would it not work back then as it does now? If God is going to blame the creation again, he's just blaming himself. If the excuse is they had "strayed" then how did they give God the slip for so long in order to have time to stray?

I don't expect answers really, just pointing out that this idea falls apart under any kind of close inspection and we're reduced to making excuses for why an extremely powerful God is getting outwitted by a bunch of Bronze Age barbarians.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, wait...

If there is supposed to be this objective morality which comes from God that he has somehow implanted in us so we know things like rape and slavery are wrong, why was he implanting people at the time of Jesus with a different set of morals so that they clearly didn't think or know slavery is wrong? If God had just given them the morality they need, as is being claimed he does now, how come they so easily ignored it back then... and if it's so easy to ignore, seemingly dependent on the point in history you are at, then what's the point of it? Why has it taken 2000 years for it to "work properly"?

Did he have to use some sort of "learning curve" of morality? And if so, why on earth would he have to? If he's just putting the morality straight into you, why exactly would it not work back then as it does now? If God is going to blame the creation again, he's just blaming himself. If the excuse is they had "strayed" then how did they give God the slip for so long in order to have time to stray?

Well, it was objective ... for them ... back then. But our objective morality is not quite the same, because we have been taught by the ascendance of the Loard that what they did back then was wrong -- wrong, I tell you.  But we know better now.

Also, morality is objective.

[robvalue]

It seems like the idea of some "golden standard" is appealing, but even when defending their own book, Christians are forced to use subjective objective morality.

http://youtu.be/44ilZq3R900

[ignoramus]

Yes, they hate the word "subjective" and prefer "objective".
It's imperative that their god is an objective conclusion.
For if their notion of god dies as they die, what of heaven?

"no, no , no... God was around before I was born, and he'll be around long after I'm gone. Yes, now I'm warm and fuzzy and smiling again!"

[Mr.wizard]

You defended his point over and over acting as if it made all the sense in the world. My point is really quite simple. If gawd didn't condone rape, he should have set up the rules before their morality got so poor. Your gawd is all knowing, yeah?

I defended his point simply to show he neither condones rape, nor thinks God condones rape. That seemed very clear to me, but people were still accusing him of it for some reason, so I figured I'd clarify. It's not my argument, it's not what I think happened, so I have no answer for your question. Ask Randy.

Well for me if he believes the stories in the old testament are true and takes the position that if god was ordering it than it wasn't really rape, then in my eyes he is condoning rape. He is trying to get around condoning rape by pretending that kidnapping a woman, forcing her to marry you and having sex with her, is not rape.

[abaris]

I defended his point simply to show he neither condones rape, nor thinks God condones rape.

Sorry, but if someone goes to great lengths to point out the finer legal points of rape in the bible, it at least borders on condoning it. Or it's simply a behavior like the proverbial three monkeys to not be confronted with the stark realities of the bible.