Rape in the Bible

[robvalue]

He does try, bless him. It was his first go. He hadn't figured out what all the buttons did. One of the analog sticks was off-centre and it made him lose his temper, we've all been there.

[Chad32]

Yeah, Yahweh doesn't send people to hell, says some people. Well he made hell, and he decided that's where you go if you don't kiss his ass enough. he gave you free will so you could choose to follow him, but calls you evil if you don't follow in his exact footsteps. He's good because that's part of the definiton of a god. Then how do you know Yahweh is a god?

[robvalue]

Because.... He says so! Ah you nearly got me there.

Yeah, people send themselves to hell. Cos that would happen. Only the insane maybe would, and kind of mean to pick on them.

He made hell then offers to save you from it. Or as Don Baker says, religion breaks your leg then sells you a crutch.

[John V]

Are...you serious?

Yes I...am.

The "consesual" thing to which was being referred is fuckin sodomy, sex between a man and a man, that drew the destructive ire of God, not the gang of rapists at Lot's door. Man on man sex gets you fireballs, offering your daughter up for a gang of rapists? Meh...

We're not told what drew the destructive ire of God. We're shown a bunch of guys trying to rape visitors. They were free to have consensual sex with each other, but they wanted to rape visitors. There were presumably cities in the workd in which there was homosexual activity, but which didn't get destroyed. So, your inference that the judgment was merely about consensual homosexual activity isn't well supported.

And I don't care what sort of relativistic cultural justification you want to bring in.

Why not? Do you believe that your moral judgments are true and correct, and other people's aren't?

[FatAndFaithless]

Are...you serious?

Yes I...am.

The "consesual" thing to which was being referred is fuckin sodomy, sex between a man and a man, that drew the destructive ire of God, not the gang of rapists at Lot's door. Man on man sex gets you fireballs, offering your daughter up for a gang of rapists? Meh...

We're not told what drew the destructive ire of God. We're shown a bunch of guys trying to rape visitors. They were free to have consensual sex with each other, but they wanted to rape visitors. There were presumably cities in the workd in which there was homosexual activity, but which didn't get destroyed. So, your inference that the judgment was merely about consensual homosexual activity isn't well supported.

And I don't care what sort of relativistic cultural justification you want to bring in.

Why not? Do you believe that your moral judgments are true and correct, and other people's aren't?

Well, we are told that homosexual sex is an abomination deserving of death, and sodomy (hence the name of the term...) was certainly going on there. It wasn't "merely" about gay sex, since God has a whole host of meaningless shit he gets hissy about, but if we're talking about sex and rape here, then yes, the gay sex must've been a part of the judgement by defintion, if it's actually an abomination.


As for your moral question. No, I don't know with epistemological certainty that my moral ideas are objectively correct, nor do you. However, we do try to base our morals on reality, and there are copious data to demonstrate why rape is morally abhorrent (psychologically, physically, socially, etc), but absolutely none to justify some of the "moral" pronouncements of your God (such as gay sex being an abomination).

[John V]

Well, we are told that homosexual sex is an abomination deserving of death, and sodomy (hence the name of the term...) was certainly going on there. It wasn't "merely" about gay sex, since God has a whole host of meaningless shit he gets hissy about, but if we're talking about sex and rape here, then yes, the gay sex must've been a part of the judgement by defintion, if it's actually an abomination.

Yes, it may have been part of it, but again, as other cities presumably with gay sex weren't destroyed, there was more being judged in the case of Sodom, and gang rape seems like it was a component.

As for your moral question. No, I don't know with epistemological certainty that my moral ideas are objectively correct, nor do you.

Bingo.

However, we do try to base our morals on reality, and there are copious data to demonstrate why rape is morally abhorrent (psychologically, physically, socially, etc), but absolutely none to justify some of the "moral" pronouncements of your God (such as gay sex being an abomination).

Here you're appealing to the harm principle, and selection of it as a moral framework is likewise your subjective choice.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, we are told that homosexual sex is an abomination deserving of death, and sodomy (hence the name of the term...) was certainly going on there. It wasn't "merely" about gay sex, since God has a whole host of meaningless shit he gets hissy about, but if we're talking about sex and rape here, then yes, the gay sex must've been a part of the judgement by defintion, if it's actually an abomination.

Yes, it may have been part of it, but again, as other cities presumably with gay sex weren't destroyed, there was more being judged in the case of Sodom, and gang rape seems like it was a component.

As for your moral question. No, I don't know with epistemological certainty that my moral ideas are objectively correct, nor do you.

Bingo.

However, we do try to base our morals on reality, and there are copious data to demonstrate why rape is morally abhorrent (psychologically, physically, socially, etc), but absolutely none to justify some of the "moral" pronouncements of your God (such as gay sex being an abomination).

Here you're appealing to the harm principle, and selection of it as a moral framework is likewise your subjective choice.

There is no code written in stone upon which for use to stumble. Of course the framework for our moral systems are chosen by us. The difference is the framework putting human wellbeing as the most important principle is demonstrably more effective at creating functioning, safe, stable, and efficient societies than a moral code constructed on flat assertions by some unassailable dictator that may or may not having any bearing on reality in any way.

[John V]

There is no code written in stone upon which for use to stumble. Of course the framework for our moral systems are chosen by us.

It's amazing that you keep saying this, then in the next breath trying to claim that your systems are objectively better than others:

The difference is the framework putting human wellbeing as the most important principle is demonstrably more effective at creating functioning, safe, stable, and efficient societies than a moral code constructed on flat assertions by some unassailable dictator that may or may not having any bearing on reality in any way.

[FatAndFaithless]

Yes, it's demonstrably more effective. It's not "better" in any sort of cosmic justice objectively-ordained-by-a-cosmic-jury sense, it's better because it works.

[LastPoet]

It is many orders of magnitude better than the christian bullshit, Johnny. If morality was a school test, secular morality would get a B-, but christian morality woud get a well rounded F.

You are leaking dogma trough the side of your mouth, mind you and clean that up.