pop morality

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

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."

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?

So from your ignorant position theirs no punishment, but from a very simply understanding you've got a forced marriage, Hefty fine which would result in slavery for up to 1 to 3 years depending on how the raper was skilled.
which means potentially years of beatings.

Where do you get the idea that their wasn't any punishment? Because their isn't a thou shalt not? God knows by turning this guy over to the family and let the natural order of event play out both the family and the raper will have the account settled.

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

 The "punishment" is not because of the rape aspect but because the man took the virginity of the father's daughter, so he has to pay THE FATHER.

Dumbest most short sighted thing I've ever read.

 Nothing is done for the woman except that she is "allowed" to marry her rapist (???) or perhaps choose not to, and if she chooses to (???) then he cannot divorce her.  But she basically has to marry the piece of shit because otherwise her father will lose the 50 shekels of silver and also any future dowry because she's "shamed" (???), which may or may not mean she'll get kicked out of her home, and on top of that the virgin-obsessed Jews would not want to marry her, and in that patriarchal society she'd be worthless without a man.  That is the system your God came up with.  So please, let me know, what do you think will happen when the rapist marries her?  Society is ENCOURAGING his behavior by putting him under the same roof with his victim.  He's gonna rape her at his whim for the rest of her life.  This is what God ordained... which means Jesus ordained this, because of the trinity.

I stand corrected. This is the dumbest thing... Maybe you honestly did not know then it would be not the dumbest but the most ignorant short sighted thing... Either way think before you speak or at least ask a question.
I gave you book chapter and verse, and right there on page it says 50 shekels of silver.. How much is a shekel? should have been your first question. A shekel was a measure of weight, later coins were minted in 3/10 of an oz of silver. depending on skill level one shekel equaled between 4 days and 10 days labor.. On average about a weeks worth of Hard work (6 days) it all depended on how the one paying sized up the job, and skil level of the worker. Now adays that 1 shekel is about 1000 dollars/ a week's worth of work. x50= 50K How does a 50K dollar fine stack up against the restitution made today? If today one was absolutely made to pay this or sold into slavery to pay this debt do you think rape would be as big as a problem it is now? then couple on the woman's expenses for the rest of her life.

As far as pedophilia goes, there is no mention for the age of consent.  You sent me on the wild goose chase in Deuteronomy 22, saying that this is where the age of consent is given (because I had previously mentioned that pedophilia is not a sin).  I can't tell you where pedophilia is NOT mentioned...

Not by name that is a modern term. Again like marriage their was no need for a direct command because the existing law protected them.

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

Again no need for a thou shalt not if one does not meet the parameters for sanctified sex.

As for fornication, as long as it is between two people who are not married, and as long as the woman never marries afterward, I do not find that it is forbidden by the law.  But please, by all means, put that claim to the fire to see if it's valid.   I don't want to keep making false accusations against the Bible because there are already so many damn things wrong with it that there's no need for false accusations.

So as far as I see it, your God allows for the raping of babies... as long as, of course, it's heterosexual.  The SPECIFIC laws do not even mention pedophilia... ever... not even once.

---

again, Silence is not permission. Their is silence because the laws stopped the sex before it even got to specific perversions.

Why do the laws prohibit bestiality and homosexual acts but approves of baby raping?

[Nihilist Virus]

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."

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?

So from your ignorant position theirs no punishment, but from a very simply understanding you've got a forced marriage, Hefty fine which would result in slavery for up to 1 to 3 years depending on how the raper was skilled.
which means potentially years of beatings.

Where do you get the idea that their wasn't any punishment? Because their isn't a thou shalt not? God knows by turning this guy over to the family and let the natural order of event play out both the family and the raper will have the account settled.

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

 The "punishment" is not because of the rape aspect but because the man took the virginity of the father's daughter, so he has to pay THE FATHER.

Dumbest most short sighted thing I've ever read.

 Nothing is done for the woman except that she is "allowed" to marry her rapist (???) or perhaps choose not to, and if she chooses to (???) then he cannot divorce her.  But she basically has to marry the piece of shit because otherwise her father will lose the 50 shekels of silver and also any future dowry because she's "shamed" (???), which may or may not mean she'll get kicked out of her home, and on top of that the virgin-obsessed Jews would not want to marry her, and in that patriarchal society she'd be worthless without a man.  That is the system your God came up with.  So please, let me know, what do you think will happen when the rapist marries her?  Society is ENCOURAGING his behavior by putting him under the same roof with his victim.  He's gonna rape her at his whim for the rest of her life.  This is what God ordained... which means Jesus ordained this, because of the trinity.

I stand corrected. This is the dumbest thing... Maybe you honestly did not know then it would be not the dumbest but the most ignorant short sighted thing... Either way think before you speak or at least ask a question.
I gave you book chapter and verse, and right there on page it says 50 shekels of silver.. How much is a shekel? should have been your first question. A shekel was a measure of weight, later coins were minted in 3/10 of an oz of silver. depending on skill level one shekel equaled between 4 days and 10 days labor.. On average about a weeks worth of Hard work (6 days) it all depended on how the one paying sized up the job, and skil level of the worker. Now adays that 1 shekel is about 1000 dollars/ a week's worth of work. x50= 50K How does a 50K dollar fine stack up against the restitution made today? If today one was absolutely made to pay this or sold into slavery to pay this debt do you think rape would be as big as a problem it is now? then couple on the woman's expenses for the rest of her life.

As far as pedophilia goes, there is no mention for the age of consent.  You sent me on the wild goose chase in Deuteronomy 22, saying that this is where the age of consent is given (because I had previously mentioned that pedophilia is not a sin).  I can't tell you where pedophilia is NOT mentioned...

Not by name that is a modern term. Again like marriage their was no need for a direct command because the existing law protected them.

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

Again no need for a thou shalt not if one does not meet the parameters for sanctified sex.

As for fornication, as long as it is between two people who are not married, and as long as the woman never marries afterward, I do not find that it is forbidden by the law.  But please, by all means, put that claim to the fire to see if it's valid.   I don't want to keep making false accusations against the Bible because there are already so many damn things wrong with it that there's no need for false accusations.

So as far as I see it, your God allows for the raping of babies... as long as, of course, it's heterosexual.  The SPECIFIC laws do not even mention pedophilia... ever... not even once.

again, Silence is not permission. Their is silence because the laws stopped the sex before it even got to specific perversions.

You keep saying "their" instead of "there"... kinda getting annoying.


Anyways, you say that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says the rapist becomes the family's slave.  OK... where in the hell are you getting that?  And you say I should ask how much a shekel is... LOL... I don't care how much it is because IT'S NOT GOING TO THE VICTIM.  Well... in their view it was going to the victim, because the victim was considered to be the father.  The woman being raped was not considered a victim.  Also you completely fail to address the fact that the rapist will continue to rape his bride.  COMPLETE SILENCE on your end.  I wonder why...?

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) "



You completely reworded Deuteronomy 23:18.  You're now a CONFIRMED LIAR.

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

Again... where does it say you may not rape your wife?  And why wouldn't a man rape his wife if he raped her before they were married and then he was forced to marry her because of it?  Insert Jackie Chan frustrated meme here.

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

This says nothing about pedophilia or marrying a child.  Get the verse that says you can't have sex with minors.

again, Silence is not permission. 
Yes it is... LOL.  No law on the American books about adultery.  You know why?  BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.

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

Yes... if by justice you mean being raped every day for the rest of their lives.

[vorlon13]

Heard some analysis on POTUS (Sirius/XM) yesterday regarding the relgiousites turn about on 'moral' candidates like Huckabee and Santorum and their moving to support candidates with less moral takes things, specifically citing Trump's divorces and remarriages and his boastful writings regarding bedding other men's wives.

It all boils down to pragmatism, if a presidential candidate doesn't look to have the wherewithal to prevail in a general election, personal morals or not, they will not be supported.

I don't recall Jesus doing any parables regarding pragmatism, perhaps these Christers have access to secret gospels or such that gives them guidance in this surprising direction.

I'd think they would rather vote for the morally right candidate (as per their definition) than to ever sidle up to a reprobate such as Trump, but it really looks like SOMETHING has changed in the Christian world this election cycle, and it has CHANGED for reasons having to do with political expediency rather than Salvation.

you do know Cruz won the Iowa caucus right???

You do know that Falwell endorsed Trump ?

[Jenny A]

@ Dritch

Just to be clear, what I'm hearing from you is this:

1.  All morallity is popular (relative) morality.

Yes

2.  God's law as defined by Jesus, is purposely designed to be unfollowable by mortal man.  

yes

3. Those portions of god's laws that appear immoral (like slavery, rape, aborting the babies of unfaithful wives, discriminating against bastards, gneocide, etc.) are good because they have helped humanity in some way.

Not good or bad they are neutral, and were or are necessary.

4.  The punishment for all violations of god's law is enternal damnation.

All meaning Any yes, Damnation meaning Hell/eternal seperation/2nd death yes

5. All violations of god's laws are equally bad.

Yes

6. Violations of god's laws are debts to god.

More or less, they are also describe as being a debt you accumilate that is yet to be paid.
(as in the wages of sin is Death.)

7. Whether other human beings are hurt by your actions is not relevent to whether the action is a sin.

All pain we identify is not sinful, no. On the other hand God identifies other 'pain' we cause one another and identifies it as sin. like divorce.

8. To be rightious is to seek atonement from god.

Only God is righteous. We seek atonement to cloth ourselves in the righteousness of Christ.

9. God's law is objective.

God's law is based on His will, and therefore does not change.

10. Morality is bad because it changes with time and place.

No, All I am saying is morality is a non stable standard and to judge yourself by it or anything else is foolish, because it can be literally made to say anything is right to wrong.

11. Atheists prefer morality because it's less strict than god's law.

No because they can justify anything they want with it.

12. Jews are an exception in that they can follow OT God's law to the letter instead of the impossible NT standard and that's OK with god.

No I refer to OT jews following the law. Their are no more OT jews, that means non are exempt. Even modern day Jews do not follow the practices of OT jews, even the most devout.

Is that correct?  If not, which of the above is wrong?  I'm not asking for the whys.  Just trying to see if I understand your position.

:thumbsup:

Okay, I think I understand you now.  My position is this:

1. All morality is relative.  However, it is based upon human instincts, human empathy, and rationality.  It is enforced by society as a whole both socially and legally.  Thus although societal morals change, individuals are by no means free to do what they want morally. 

I don't argue that this is ideal so much as that it is all there is.  There is no god.  People have never been able to agree on what god's laws are.  Even members of the same sect and religion have different ideas about what those laws are.  And where the religion has a book of law, that law is continuously reinterpreted to reflect societal morals.  In fact human morality is the driving force behind what is considered to be god's laws.  It is better to recognize this as discuss morality on the basis of the here and now.

2. If god's law is, as you say, designed to be unfollowable, than the god you believe in is a tyrannical bastard and not worthy of worship.

3. It is immoral and dangerous to society to use god's laws to justify things like slavery, rape, or genocide.  I'm applying today's standards.  And by them, god is immoral. 

4. The natural result of being alive is eventual death.  That death is oblivion.  That makes life more, not less valuable.  Human laws should be designed to further then lives of humans.

5. Not all immoral behavior is equally bad.  All civilized criminal systems implicitly recognize this and so does the OT law. 

6. Violations of god's law, are irrelevant to what human law should be.  Human laws should be worked out rationally.  No human should act on the assumption that bad behavior can be excused by a god.  The debt accumulated by bad behavior is to the person injured, or the state if the state is injured.

7. Not all injuries to others are immoral.  But injury to others is one of the standards by which we judge morality.

8. Righteous is not really a useful term.

9.  If god's will is unchanging than god is not the god presented in the Bible.

10.  Morality is indeed malleable.  But it is the only standard of behavior we have.  Nor is it so malleable that anything goes.  See number one above.

11. Stricter is not the word I'd use for what much of what the Bible proclaims as god's law so much as it is more barbaric.  Slavery, genocide, etc. is not justifiable by "the good of humanity."  The law includes many nonsensical proscriptions such as not wearing mixed fabrics, not eating pork, etc. The law favors men over women.  The law provides little if any protection for children.  It also wastes much time on how to worship god in ways that have been done away with in the New Testament such as animal sacrifice.

Not only does it allow light punishment of things like rape and allow slavery, but it also allows mistreatment of foreigners, women, servants, and slaves.  It also requires discrimination against bastards (not just in inheritance either). And it allows discrimination against racial minorities and homosexuals (actually it often requires discrimination) and in that way it is actually more lax, not stricter than current morals.

I prefer morality to god's laws because morality reflects the current needs and understanding of my society.  And I think society has greatly improved since 100 CE or so.


Frankly, after taking the time to understand you position, I reject it utterly as immoral.  I could not in conscience follow it.  Certainly I would not ask to know at a god who would propose such a thing.  But it does explain a certain amount of religious barbarousness.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Pop morality is a term I use to describe what the popular culture deems moral. Pop morality is an ever changing standard. It's what is popularly defined as right and wrong, here in this country/your country, and now/current generation, could easily be held as Immoral a generation ago or perhaps even in a future generation. This is also true even in this current generation, but perhaps in a different region or country. because this ever changing standard is unique to a specific time and place to a specific people I use the term pop morality.

Homosexuality and Abortion are two good examples of how pop morality has changed it's 'values' concerning these two subjects. Just one or two generations ago these two social issues were THE most Immoral thing one could do in this society. Now the most immoral thing one can do is try and prevent someone from being gay or having an abortion.

The problem with pop morality is, that every generation and ever culture thinks that they are good and are doing the 'right thing.' but again the 'right thing' varies wildly from region to region/generation to generation. Self righteousness kicks in, and someone makes a judgment. (look at the last epicurean paradox thread for the typical atheist 'judgement.')

Now that said, 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'?

Or do you agree that your current sense of 'morality' is trivial? If so, why try and judge God by it? Why assume that living a simply 'moral' life is enough for anything? What makes your version of 'morality' any better than anyone else's? Are you all so foolish to think that the people who live their versions of 'moral' lives think themselves as evil, even if it means killing you and people like you?

Look at us now. We think it right to kill terrorists, we do not see ourselves as being evil for killing someone who would disrupt our lives in such away.. and yet somehow it's wrong when they do the same thing? Again the point being they do what they do (shoot up magazines and cut of heads) in the name of what they think is right. Just like we do.

So my question is, if you have a heart that blindly accepts everything society tells you is 'moral'/You justify your morality by using common/pop arguments, and you have no system of checks and balances outside of what society defines as 'moral' how then are you any different than dark age Christians, North Koreans, ISIS, Taliban, Nazis, the US slave traders/owners, The US citizens who supported the wholesale slaughter of the Indians Etc??

All of these people followed their 'pop morality' to it's logical end. How is the modern westerner any different? What about your system of belief transcends what other generations will deem 'immoral?' and if you do not have this absolute morality, then how are you in a position to judge ANYONE Else's system of right and wrong?

How dare they establish morality by social consensus - how can a whole city-state or country be more correct on morality than one despot dickhead of a god to establish his own "objective standard"?

All of the god believers have followed YOUR pop morality to its logical end too, and the reason why it's ending is because it doesn't work either. So much for your perfect god and his perfect code. Asshole!

There is no set standard of morality, and that is the one and only fundamental of human society which is good. That means that when it doesn't work, it can be changed!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Per the biblical rules you can screw 15,000 women at once as long as you marry them.

[loganonekenobi]

In conclusion for me I have learned about the ultimate form or pseudo-morality is still fear, guilt, misplaced blame, and unprovable promise. Even in Buddhism you get to try again if you fail.

your words are twisty but the facts remain. your offer is rejected.

[brewer]

My father was selectively moral.

[Reforged]

If Gods morality is so awesome shouldn't it be the most popular? It just strikes me that *perfect* morality created by a *perfect* being would be so clearly head and shoulders above the rest that nobody would want to follow any other. It would be inescapably clear to even the most dense of people.
I should feel a sense of elation when I think of the contents of the Bible. I don't. I feel a combination of amusement and disgust.
Why is that?

Also I'm not sure if I'm completely qualified to comment on the morality of society but I was under the impression that rape, torture and murder were the most immoral things you could do. Did I miss a meeting?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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".)