Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 8:59 am
Amazing he created humans that had the desire to rape someone in the first place. Not strictly necessary.
Posts: 7167
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 9:00 am
Indeed, the human sex drive is a curious example of godly design.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 2344
Threads: 79
Joined: November 18, 2014
Reputation:
42
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 10:53 am
It amazes me that Christians get upset over the idea that what is moral is ultimately decided by humans but then try to defend the Old Testament's crappy treatment of rape victims with the excuse that life was different a long time ago. It sounds as if Christians are the ones who practice moral relativism. According to both their bibles and their beliefs, morals change according to the times.
Also, their god is not all powerful or all knowing so he couldn't prevent things like rape or slavery but preventing the mixing of fiber or eating rare meat were entirely within his power. It sounds as if he is a very weak deity.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 11:06 am
(January 29, 2015 at 10:53 am)Nope Wrote: It amazes me that Christians get upset over the idea that what is moral is ultimately decided by humans but then try to defend the Old Testament's crappy treatment of rape victims with the excuse that life was different a long time ago. It sounds as if Christians are the ones who practice moral relativism. According to both their bibles and their beliefs, morals change according to the times.
Also, their god is not all powerful or all knowing so he couldn't prevent things like rape or slavery but preventing the mixing of fiber or eating rare meat were entirely within his power. It sounds as if he is a very weak deity.
Its as bad as this.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/republicans-rally...kin-796585
or even worse.......
https://www.google.com/search?q=republic...3&ie=UTF-8
all these articles on rape and guess what godly republicans trying to reword rape
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 132
Threads: 1
Joined: January 28, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 12:06 pm
(January 29, 2015 at 8:52 am)Tonus Wrote: (January 28, 2015 at 10:03 pm)Roxy904 Wrote: This is just so wrong. A woman gets raped, and then, not only is her rapist not punished, she is forced to live with him. That's not making the best of a bad situation; it's just cruelty, plain and simple. It doesn't fix the situation, or even put a band-aid or it; it wides the problem even further. And, seriously, there was no other solution whatsoever? The OT treats women as property. Note that the sentence for rape is death if the woman is betrothed; in other words, if she is another man's property, the rapist is put to death for defiling her. He is primarily committing a crime against her owner, not her. On the other hand, if she does not belong to another man, then the sentence is basically a form of "you broke it, you bought it." She probably loses value in the eyes of other men, and therefore the guy who 'damaged the goods' must pay for the loss (note that the price is paid to the woman's father).
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
Clearly the crime is committed against the woman, your entire idea that the punishment is for taking another mans property is so weak you havn't even tried to substantiate it.
Posts: 7045
Threads: 20
Joined: June 17, 2014
Reputation:
55
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 12:07 pm
Wow, one passage? How about using some of the passage directly around that one?
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 2344
Threads: 79
Joined: November 18, 2014
Reputation:
42
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2015 at 12:18 pm by Nope.)
(January 29, 2015 at 12:07 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wow, one passage? How about using some of the passage directly around that one?
My guess is that he is only now reading that passage for the first time.
Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 12:12 pm
(January 29, 2015 at 12:06 pm)YGninja Wrote: (January 29, 2015 at 8:52 am)Tonus Wrote: The OT treats women as property. Note that the sentence for rape is death if the woman is betrothed; in other words, if she is another man's property, the rapist is put to death for defiling her. He is primarily committing a crime against her owner, not her. On the other hand, if she does not belong to another man, then the sentence is basically a form of "you broke it, you bought it." She probably loses value in the eyes of other men, and therefore the guy who 'damaged the goods' must pay for the loss (note that the price is paid to the woman's father).
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
Clearly the crime is committed against the woman, your entire idea that the punishment is for taking another mans property is so weak you havn't even tried to substantiate it.
you are so "special"..... do not and i say please... do not apologize what is clearly written in a book... because well Tonus is right suck it up and get over it.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 7167
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 12:24 pm
(January 29, 2015 at 12:06 pm)YGninja Wrote: Clearly the crime is committed against the woman, your entire idea that the punishment is for taking another mans property is so weak you havn't even tried to substantiate it. The verses make clear that the difference in the situations is whether the woman is betrothed; that is, she is engaged to marry another man. If this is the case, the rapist is put to death. If she is not promised to another man, then a fine is paid to her father and she becomes her rapist's wife. The crime is obviously committed against the woman in our eyes, but back then the payment for the crime was designed to compensate the victim's owner, be it her father or her fiancee.
Of note, verse 13-19 tells us that if a man maliciously defames his wife, he is to pay a fine to her father. But if there isn't enough evidence to clear her name she is presumed guilty and put to death. Not only is she being treated as property, but she's barely considered human.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
Posts: 132
Threads: 1
Joined: January 28, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Challenge regarding Christian morality
January 29, 2015 at 2:21 pm
(January 29, 2015 at 12:07 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Wow, one passage? How about using some of the passage directly around that one?
You havn't provided any argument, provide me a passage which states that the crime has been committed against the father, as the woman is just his property. You can't even get close, again you are just fantasizing.
The crime is clearly being committed against the woman, hence the terminology "though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her."
Not "the betrothed woman screamed, and there was no-one there to rescue her fathers property".
|
