The New Jesus Timeline

[Cato]

No. Give me your scripture reference from blueletterbible.org

Your immediate answer of 'no' is encouraging(although not in accordance with scripture); however, I must question your motivation. Can I not use the KJV to prove my point? Why send me to blueletter, which is only a portal designed to separate the credulous from their hard earned dollar?

Will you accept my invocation of scripture using the free KJV? Or are you just here to make a dollar off your lord and savior?

[Minimalist]

He's looking for Deut. 22 28-29

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

English Standard Version (ESV)

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Note: our xtian friend will doubtless quibble because the term used is "violated" rather than "raped." These people are not called literalists for nothing.

Still....one can hardly expect one of these asshole jesus freaks who bothers translating this drivel to say "and he fucketh the shit out of her."

[Creed of Heresy]

Hey, if the bible started saying "and he fucketh the shit out of her," I might actually at least consider it something worthwhile for taking seriously...if only to turn it into the world's longest death metal song ever.

[Godscreated]

Leviticus is the closest to the original question. There isn't any word for rape in those verses. Just fornication between 2 people.

So now answer your own question. Why is rape immoral???

I think it's very clever how people say "there was no word for rape!" Except that given the context it clearly meant rape in all of those instances.

Why is rape immoral? Gee, maybe it has something to do with forcing someone to do something against their will, over-riding their freedom of choice and personal being, resulting in severe psychological trauma that damages the victim for the rest of their life? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the most basic human moral precept; rape, which is to have someone force themselves upon you in an extremely invasive manner, is the most obvious and clear violation of this basic form of morality.

Every atheist on this site wants God to do what you just described, not sexually, you all want God to do away with your freedom of choice so you can know He exists.

[Zen Badger]

I think it's very clever how people say "there was no word for rape!" Except that given the context it clearly meant rape in all of those instances.

Why is rape immoral? Gee, maybe it has something to do with forcing someone to do something against their will, over-riding their freedom of choice and personal being, resulting in severe psychological trauma that damages the victim for the rest of their life? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, the most basic human moral precept; rape, which is to have someone force themselves upon you in an extremely invasive manner, is the most obvious and clear violation of this basic form of morality.

Every atheist on this site wants God to do what you just described, not sexually, you all want God to do away with your freedom of choice so you can know He exists.

Ok GC, time for your medications and a lie down.

There's a good chap.

[KichigaiNeko]

Excellent work D-P....will look at the following vids as i have time...

sorry- getting married in December and atm things are a bit hectic.

[DeistPaladin]

Nice video. Has your research been empirically confirmed accurate?

Since most of my research consists of picking up the Bible and reading it, I'd say so.

Scholars can say, "this part of the Bible was added later, that part was interpolated, etc." but I'm not having a discussion with them. I'm having a discussion with the "Word of God" crowd that doesn't allow for such things.

---

So now answer your own question. Why is rape immoral???

It violates the rights of another. We as human beings have a sense of empathy and community. We identify with the suffering of others. Where our actions impact other sentient beings, questions of morality apply. Sometimes these questions and dilemmas are complex but they often boil down to not inflicting on others what we would not want ourselves, else we would be hypocrites.

You are free to believe this conscience is an endowment from God if you wish but then if you propose the Bible as the ultimate authority of morality, how can you reconcile the fact that our conscience should find that book so morally abhorrent?

[elunico13]

It violates the rights of another. We as human beings have a sense of empathy and community. We identify with the suffering of others. Where our actions impact other sentient beings, questions of morality apply. Sometimes these questions and dilemmas are complex but they often boil down to not inflicting on others what we would not want ourselves, else we would be hypocrites.

I don't see why this standard of empathy and community should be adopted over any other. How can you justify that people's rights are even important?

[genkaus]

I don't see why this standard of empathy and community should be adopted over any other. How can you justify that people's rights are even important?

Rights are the social recognition of your identity as a human being. It is the sanction given as a result of acceptance of your capacity for autonomy and rationality. That is how you justify rights.

[elunico13]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

English Standard Version (ESV)

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

Note: our xtian friend will doubtless quibble because the term used is "violated" rather than "raped." These people are not called literalists for nothing.

Still....one can hardly expect one of these asshole jesus freaks who bothers translating this drivel to say "and he fucketh the shit out of her."

When you don't read the Bible and just cut and paste from the internet you skip over verses that precede it like verse 25. If this is your standard of research than any knowledge claims can definitely be doubted. From your last comment I can see the pattern that's so common from evolutionist/atheists that your beliefs are held on to for emotional reasons and not logical.

Deut. 22:25
But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

---

I don't see why this standard of empathy and community should be adopted over any other. How can you justify that people's rights are even important?

Rights are the social recognition of your identity as a human being. It is the sanction given as a result of acceptance of your capacity for autonomy and rationality. That is how you justify rights.

You're begging the question here. Why is your autonomy more superior than James Holme's autonomy to kill 12 and injure 50 in the theatres of Colorado? I don't see how this is rational either. It's still your standard of morality against somebody else's.