- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgain. This is supposed to be the word of god.
Well the property relationship itself is immoral and should be questioned as much as the rape.
If you lived in a society where slaves were the norm and 'raping' a slave was considered permissible, then one might choose to not rape ones slave on moral grounds, but one should equally choose not to have slaves. I guess to what extent one should fight against slavery in such a society would be up for debate.
God can tell people not to wear clothes from two different cloths, but can't
tell you not to rape or OWN people??? [also executing people left right and
centre by horrible means to boot]
It's entirely non-controversial that peoples views on what is moral are heavily
influenced by culture and that people brought up in such cultures are unlikely
to see how harmful they are which is why change almost always happens
slowly and is hard to achieve.
But this book is supposed to be about the rules and laws laid down by GOD...
God does not have that excuse.
This is not a history text, or ancient civic law book, and this is not the history forum.
It's a holy book, the supposed inerrant word of god.
And as such should be tested against OUR modern standards.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by sonshipI'm not the one trying to justify keeping people as slaves and raping them.
Is Googlefudge a simpleminded reactionary bigot ?
Yea.
That would be you.
Given that you are thus an immoral piece of [insert derogatory term of choice here]
I really don't give a damn that you don't like what I say.
Your imaginary god is a monster.
That you try to justify it makes you one too.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDeath for rape is only if the woman is married or engaged. Otherwise, raping a woman gets you a fine. Unless she is a slave, then there's no punishment.The Bible's punishment for raping an unmarried girl is so slack, that it's immoral. If I was a judge who didn't condone rape, but merely made rapists pay a fine, wouldn't you think I was an evil judge, especially if the victim was someone you loved?I do not think that the Bible is saying this. Referring back to the section we looked at ...[text shortened]... out of fear, then she is assumed to have consented. The fine is for consensual pre-marital sex.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThat observation isn't true of the bible since, as you've already been shown, the bible considers premarital sex by women to be 'outrageous' and 'evil'. So the only sex the bible could mean in this context is rape, since an unmarried woman would be killed.
No, my post was not built around the last sentence in it - it was built around the observation that rape is defined as sex without consent and that in the ancient world the consenting party was the father, not the woman, and therefore when they talk about rape in ancient texts they may not necessarily mean what we would understand rape to be.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by vivifyI don't think that that's true. Bear in mind that law codes in those days were badly written. The clear implication that I get is that the penalty for forced sex is death. However there are some catches - the woman can end up being blamed and as you noted status matters - if a prince forces a slave girl then they would regard it as his right. If a low status male forced himself on a princess then they'd become quite inventive in their punishment.
Death for rape is only if the woman is married or engaged. Otherwise, raping a woman gets you a fine. Unless she is a slave, then there's no punishment.
I don't think we are going to get much further on this point. Possibly we should move on to the notion that this was a law code designed for the times - not that different from other law codes of the time (which you can find links to on Wikipedia). Christians would not regard the rules in Leviticus and Deuteronomy as being binding on them so I'm left wondering why the atheists seem to regard them as eternal. Other than the Ten Commandments, which no one (I think) regards as particularly evil, there are no rules in the Old Testament which are strongly binding on Gentiles. Leviticus contains Gods laws for the people of Israel, they are not binding for gentile Christians. Also Deuteronomy does not start with "The Lord said to...", which every chapter in Leviticus does.
I think there's two separate threads here. For the believers there is the problem with how one copes with rules which are clearly outdated. For the atheists there is the problem as to how much one should criticise a religion for rules it does not apply. I know of no Christian group who advocates the stoning of women for adultery - so there is a danger of having an argument over nothing.
Twice over in fact. If, as atheists believe, there is no God then all discussions about God are about nothing and religious rules are obviously irrelevant - there is no particular reason to attempt to show they are evil - all one needs to show is that there is no God. If there is a God then even if we think the rules are evil they are the ones we have been given and we are compelled to obey them. The Christians take a relaxed view of the Old Testament rules (or at least should - c.f. Mark 2:27) so what is the argument actually about?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThought
I don't think that that's true. Bear in mind that law codes in those days were badly written. The clear implication that I get is that the penalty for forced sex is death. However there are some catches - the woman can end up being blamed and as you noted status matters - if a prince forces a slave girl then they would regard it as his right. If a lo ...[text shortened]... ld Testament rules (or at least should - c.f. Mark 2:27) so what is the argument actually about?
If, as atheists believe, there is no God then all discussions about God are about nothing and religious rules are obviously irrelevant - there is no particular reason to attempt to show they are evil - all one needs to show is that there is no God.
Wow. I thought you were smarter than that.
There is of course no god.
But theists BELIEVE that a god or gods exist, and Christians believe that the bible was inspired
by their god.
It doesn't matter if the OT laws are no-longer supposed to apply, they were applied once.
And the god that supposedly made those laws is the same god Christians believe in today.
So it is absolutely valid to ask why the F' people are worshipping a being who once thought
that these were good and moral laws? And how on Earth do these people still consider the
bible and this god to be a source of morality?
Other than the Ten Commandments, which no one (I think) regards as particularly evil, ...
Wrong again... Have you actually read them?
Originally posted by googlefudgeAlso, the impotence of the OT is still around. The reason why there have been images on TV of Christians holding signs that say "God hates f-gs" is because of OT writings that say being gay is an "abomination" and that gays must be killed. Society believes it's wrong for women to sleep around but okay for men to do so, because OT law that says women who have had premarital sex did something "outrageous" and "evil", with the punishment being death. Jews even today still abide by the OT and all its burdensome laws.
[quote]
It doesn't matter if the OT laws are no-longer supposed to apply, they were applied once.
And the god that supposedly made those laws is the same god Christians believe in
Say the OT doesn't matter all you want, people still suffer today because of it.
01 Mar 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, and I'm curious as to which one you take issue with.If, as atheists believe, there is no God then all discussions about God are about nothing and religious rules are obviously irrelevant - there is no particular reason to attempt to show they are evil - all one needs to show is that there is no God.
Wow. I thought you were smarter than that.
There is of course no god.
But theis ...[text shortened]... think) regards as particularly evil, ...[/quote]
Wrong again... Have you actually read them?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by googlefudge
There is of course no god.
When we read your repeated denials of God, we are confirmed that we must be on the right track.
But theists BELIEVE that a god or gods exist, and Christians believe that the bible was inspired by their god.
That's right. And many of if remember when God was not real to us. And some of us remember days of mocking and scoffing. And we can only thank God that He had mercy on us to give us the ability to believe.
It doesn't matter if the OT laws are no-longer supposed to apply, they were applied once. And the god that supposedly made those laws is the same god Christians believe in today.
That's right.
Before this God became incarnated to come and die a redemptive death for our sins, He showed us how He hates sin and how serious sinning is.
The Gospel of Luke would not make as much sense immediattely following the book of Genesis. So God has lain down a dark backround of His condemnation of all kinds of sinning in a serious and even awful way. Upon this dark backround the brightness of His redeeming love in Jesus Christ is all the more pronounced.
The Old Testament law, Paul call "the ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor. 3:9) . A solid and firm backround in God's condemnation of the sin nature exposed by the Law is the backdrop upon which we are so impressed by His sacrifice in the Son for our salvation.
So it is absolutely valid to ask why the F' people are worshipping a being who once thought that these were good and moral laws? And how on Earth do these people still consider the bible and this god to be a source of morality?
You have no basis other than personal preference for pronouncing any of these actions as evil. You evolution theory doesn't establish a universal basis of goodness. Your chemical fissing is purely mechanical and establishes no solid basis of morality.
No doubt you'll answer that an atheist can be good. But that is not the point. The point is that other than a purely mechanistic fissing of atoms indifferent to any transcendent moral law, you have no firm basis to condemn any of these laws.
Your "good" by which you think to condemn Deuteronomy, in your atheist philosophy, at best, is just atoms fissing and bubbling in a purely deterministic way which negates your "choosing" to be moral.
In your atheist world view neither you are choosing to be good and unbelieving in God nor am I choosing to believe in God. There is only the deterministic combining and recombining of material elements.
Anyway, we have Jesus Christ to point to as expressing this God in human morality as a climax. What Atheist in history would you put forward as being more a defining standard of high human living ?
We're more and most impressed with Jesus Christ. He has an approvedness built up that commands our highest regard. And He said His Father [certainly the God in the OT] was His "Righteous Father".
He was most qualified among human beings to launch criticisms against the law of Moses and its God. Yet He referred to His Father as "Righteous".
Originally posted by sonshipOn the right track to what? And what is a 'near repeat'? Was he about to repeat it but didn't. I sure hope that the track in question was 'getting him to admit he is an atheist'. Because if you are taking his denial as confirmation of anything else, then you seriously need your head examined.
When we read your near repeated denials of God, we are confirmed that we must be on the right track.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead"On the right track" to reality.
On the right track to what? And what is a 'near repeat'? Was he about to repeat it but didn't. I sure hope that the track in question was 'getting him to admit he is an atheist'. Because if you are taking his denial as confirmation of anything else, then you seriously need your head examined.
"Near repeat" was a typo. It should read "repeated" as in "repeated denials".
I erased "near".
My post has nothing to do with getting him to admit atheism. I know he's an atheist.
I don't mind examinations.
Mostly I am concerned about God examining me.
If you had good sense you also would have that concern.
But the atheist arguments are continued parallels to the denials of many God opposers in the Bible, are so reminiscient here, the arguments of many atheists confirm it is the same God we are dealing with today.
You think, you're coming up with "new" stuff.
Originally posted by sonshipYou are programmed from day one to resist any effort to talk you out of believing in your god. The harder the opposition pushes the harder you push back defending your position.There is of course no god.
When we read your repeated denials of God, we are confirmed that we must be on the right track.
But theists BELIEVE that a god or gods exist, and Christians believe that the bible was inspired by their god.
That's right. And many of if remember when God was not real to us. And some of u ...[text shortened]... cisms against the law of Moses and its God. Yet He referred to His Father as [b]"Righteous".[/b]
This is a direct result of your religious brainwashing and it's too bad you can't view it as such.