(February 2, 2016 at 11:34 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: So y'all can know what part Drich casually reworded for his lecture, here's Deuteronomy 23:17-18 in the NIV:

17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

And in Young's Literal Translation:

17 There is not a whore among the daughters of Israel, nor is there a whoremonger among the sons of Israel;
18 thou dost not bring a gift of a whore, or a price of a dog, into the house of Jehovah thy God, for any vow; for the abomination of Jehovah thy God [are] even both of them.

(I'm sure that "of a dog" is slang for "of a gigolo".)

He came at me with,

"That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) "

I'd said fornication is not actually against the Bible as long as neither party is betrothed or married and as long as the woman never marries. He is a God damn liar.

(February 2, 2016 at 11:08 am)Drich Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 6:57 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is just argument by definition.  It's a word game, nothing more.  And by choosing to play it, you forfeit the real game.

You want your arbitrary scheme of vicarious redemption to escape criticism as a moral system, and so you exempt it from consideration by using a custom definition of morality chosen to suit your argument.  Besides being after the fact, it is also wrong.  Living by vicarious redemption is a behavior which you have judged to be good.   Thus, it constitutes a set of morals.

Moreover it's a despicable set of morals in that it denies the debt owed to the wronged party in favor of a magic act which mysteriously takes away guilt.

Two things one it's not a word game. It's a completely different paradigm of obtaining the righteous required to enter heaven. Morality is based on works and behavior. Unless you are an OT Jew this method of seeking righteousness does not apply.

second thing what is 'magic' about a debt you owe being paid by someone else?

Ever had a parent? or were you paying your own way since birth?

So you're making an argument for the morality of a system that is not a moral system. You just blew it, pal.

Congratulations on showing us the emptiness of your word game. No, it's not a morality at all, which is why you're trying to argue that it is a moral way to behave. Gotcha.

(February 2, 2016 at 1:30 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 8:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: So, if god's word isn't meant to be a moral standard then wtf was the point of your thread?!  Your whole condescending assertion was that people who don't believe in God can't possibly establish their own internal moral standard, correct?  I'm lost as to the point you are trying to make...

target lock again... You were sooooooooooooo busy being right about empathy you lost sight of where the thread went.

The point of the thread is two fold. One show the contrast between God's absolutes and mans morality (ALL Morality even religious morality) Allowing me to explain why morality is not a standard to be used to judge right and wrong/Is not what God is looking for in us or from us. And why you 'good people' should not rely on it to define your 'righteousness.'

And Two, to point to an existence lived through atonement. which is what God wanted for all of us. To set us apart from rules and law to define our righteousness. to explain a life lived in righteousness is the real freedom you all pretend to have living good 'moral' lives without God.

God only uses His law to judge those who have not accepted the atonement offered by Christ. In biblical Christianity it is explain several times that we (Christians) are not defined or judged by our morality, but by our obedience to accept the atonement offered. Those who do not accept Christ's gift are however judged by their 'morality' and like the Pharisees will be found wanting.

Christ took THE most holy and religious group apart by their seams using their own hypocrisy and morality as His guidelines. Just like how I show you the 'relabeling' of nazi like persecution in modern society Christ took the 'morals' of the pharisees and showed them their own double standard and judged them by their own rules... So too will the 'moral' be judged.

So in other words...you can be a shitty fucking person your whole life, be completely self serving and treat people like garbage, but as long as you accept Christ as your savior you get a free pass. :: eye roll:: Do you understand how morally bankrupt and utterly ridiculous that is?

You're right, you shit stains - whoops - I mean Christians really ARE morally superior to atheists aren't you?

(February 2, 2016 at 6:07 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 2:20 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='1192640' dateline='1454425248']
When I say the law allows for rape, I am saying that there is no commandment, "Thou shalt not rape."  Period.  Does not exist.  Rape is only punishable if it is accompanied with some form of adultery, which is to say that rape and consensual sex were indistinguishable to the lawmakers.

What are you talking about? their is only one pretext in which sex is permitted.
That's in a sanctified marriage. "That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) "

Again "thou shall not rape" is not needed when "thou shal not have sex unless your married has been established."

Quote:In Deuteronomy 22, which you wanted me to read for some reason (most Christians try to pretend this chapter doesn't exist), if you look at verses 28-29, there is no real punishment for rape. None. 

what are you talking about? Their is, one had to marry and care for this woman for the rest of his life. No divorce. and their was a fine of 1 years gross wages of silver for skilled labor. pretty hefty fine... So what happens when he could pay? Dude became the Family's slave. How do you think the son in law was treated? do you think that maybe the rules for beating a slave was pushed in those first few weeks?
.

Beside I'm sure far more raped women in OT times got a far stronger sense of justice than some sterile prison sentence.

 

Are you kidding me?! You are punishing a RAPE VICTIM by forcing her to live with her rapist, and essentially treating her as property. I hope to Christ you are not a female, Drich. This is one really disgusting display of religious apologetics. Yeah, I'm sure the women who are sharing a roof with the men who sexually assaulted them (and who continue to live as free men) feel more satisfied than the women who's rapists are locked up for life.

You're a little sicko, SPORT.

(January 27, 2016 at 11:45 am)Drich Wrote: Without any absolute standards, what makes any of you think that your current acceptance of pop morality as being 'the good and right thing' makes you any different than those who have accepted the pop morality of their time and or culture? Meaning if you have no absolutes standards in your life (like the bible,) and if you were born into Hitler's Germany, under North Korean rule or maybe under an ISIS state, and just like you do now, you blindly follow and do not challenge pop morality of your culture, how then would you find your way back to what you now consider to be 'moral'?

And since you just openly admitted that god's word has nothing to do with moral standards (which is obvious given the atrocities sanctioned by him in the bible), and everything to do with atonement and accepting Jesus, how the hell would YOU, sport?

The bible gods objective morality 

morality or OP would call it "pop" morality

---

(February 3, 2016 at 8:59 pm)dyresand Wrote: morality or OP would call it "pop" morality

---

That one from Dawkins moves me every time I read it. [emoji18]


Hey, I think I found Drich on YouTube!!!

http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

(February 3, 2016 at 8:56 pm)dyresand Wrote: The bible gods objective morality 

The Bible has some very colorful language.

Did you hear about the time the "good guys" ate a baby in the bible? I kid you not.

Skip to 13:45 to get the juicy details. Gimme some of that god's righteousness. As always, the whole episode is awesome as well.

http://youtu.be/qu3jGr_Nw00