The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Huggy Bear]

who is the "you" referring to

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am providing an example of Bible sanctioned abortion. Being Christian and pro-life, I'm just wondering how you feel about that.

First of all, women in ancient times didn't have a say in who they were married to, so by you definition most prearranged marriages were rapes.

As I stated before context is everything, what may hold true in modern society, may not work the same way in ancient society, a woman had no means to be a single mother, the role of the male was as a protector and provider, remember the story of Naomi and Ruth? after their husbands died, Naomi had to go seek the protection of a male relative named Boaz.

So essentially the law you're referring to is forcing the male to take care of his responsibilities.

You guys are like a broken record. Why couldn't God have afforded women the right to have a say in who they married? Why did God cultivate a patriarchal culture in the first place? I mean, since he was in charge of writing the Jews' moral (and ritual) laws and all...

Theoretical commandment God could have written but for some reason didn't think of it:

"Women are autonomous beings and shall be treated as such"

There is no context that justifies, because your omnipotent God is responsible for all of the context.

God did originally make man and woman equal.

Did you forget that the woman was cursed in the garden of Eden so that man was made to rule over her?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you're fine with calling collective punishment just?

[LadyForCamus]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am providing an example of Bible sanctioned abortion. Being Christian and pro-life, I'm just wondering how you feel about that.


You guys are like a broken record. Why couldn't God have afforded women the right to have a say in who they married? Why did God cultivate a patriarchal culture in the first place? I mean, since he was in charge of writing the Jews' moral (and ritual) laws and all...

Theoretical commandment God could have written but for some reason didn't think of it:

"Women are autonomous beings and shall be treated as such"

There is no context that justifies, because your omnipotent God is responsible for all of the context.

God did originally make man and woman equal.

Did you forget that the woman was cursed in the garden of Eden so that man was made to rule over her?

Mm... So woman suggests man do something. Man does it. Woman gets punished. Woman gets enslaved. God is not only unjust, but also has a penchant for misogyny, apparently.

Also, pretty unjust (cruel/evil is a more accurate description, actually) to subject an entire population of innocent women to life-long sexual assault in the name of the perceived wrong doing of one human.

[Edwardo Piet]

If we are talking legality, then legally a corporation is considered a person... what's  your point?

I gave you the medical definition, which defined a fetus as "unborn offspring", human offspring ARE children, but I see you opt to ignore medical definitions when it's convenient.

Just so were clear, are you saying that an unborn has no right to live? By what authority does one make this determination?

None of it changes the stupidity of being pro life.

It amuses me that you said I was trying to argue semantics but it's you who is arguing semantics.

Yes absolutely no right. It's the mother's decision.

[Rev. Rye]

Regarding the OP, there's one crucial point both sides of the debate tend to neglect: while, in the Old Testament days, an alarming number of offenses were indeed considered punishable by death, death penalty cases then were on such stringent standards that anyone being executed was an extremely rare occurrence.

One crucial part involved witnesses. There needed to be witnesses to the crime in order for execution to happen. But not just any witnesses would do. They needed to fulfill these criteria:

• They both had to be male, employed, familiar with the law, and law-abiding.
  
• Before the crime was committed, they both had to inform the defendant clearly and succinctly that, if they did whatever they were on trial for, they would risk the death penalty, and had to be told something along the lines of "what I'm doing is a capital offense, I know it's a capital offense, but I'm gonna do it anyway." This had to be done within seconds of the act in question being committed.
  
• Neither of them could be related to each other or the accused.
  

Note, I'm sure if I were to write a story about such a scenario, it would threaten willing suspension of disbelief, but then there's the trial:

• A jury of at least 23 judges had to cross-examine both of the witnesses, and if any of the evidence one person gave contradicted the other, even on something as minor as someone's eye color, it was thrown out.
  
• A majority of at least 13/23 had to be in favor of conviction, but, if they have a unanimous verdict in favor of execution, well, let's just let this quote from the Talmud explain it: "If the Sanhedrin unanimously find [the accused] guilty, he is acquitted. Why? — Because we have learned by tradition that sentence must be postponed till the morrow in hope of finding new points in favour of the defence"
  

In the end, if a court executed two people over a span of 70 years, people were more likely to consider something wrong with the court than anything else.

More information can be found in the Talmud, specifically the Sanhedrin Tractate. This can be extremely difficult going, but it's probably worth it.

Also, for an illustration of this in action, see the story of Susannah and the Elders in Daniel (Chapter 13, Apocrypha).

Of course, when you hear even of Christians who talk about Homosexuality should be punishable by death in accordance with Levitical law, do you really expect them to actually go through this system?

[Simon Moon]

Then why wouldn't the human induced abortions also part of predestination?

Because humans have the ability to choose, just because God know the choice that one will make doesn't make that choice predetermined.

Please explain, in detail, how it is possible for a god to know every choice I will ever make, and yet I still have free will?

I can't make any choices other than the ones god already knows I will make, right?

We come from God and we go back to God. The time and season in which we arrive on the earth and leave it are in the for knowledge of God, it doesn't necessarily make it his will.

Yes, we all understand what you believe about your mythology.

You claim that god already knows every decision I will ever make, including the ones the lead me to disbelieve he exists. And yet he decided to create me anyway, knowing ahead of time that I am destined for hell.

In fact, according to what you are saying, he created the vast majority of humanity, knowing they were/are destined for hell. Most of these people are destined for hell based almost solely on their geography and culture.

So, not only is your god evil for not making in more obvious that he exists, but you are immoral for worshiping such a god, who would punish the vast majority of humanity for the accident of being born in the wrong place, to parents that believe in the wrong god.

As I've said before, the worst possible universe I can imagine, is one in which the Biblical god actually exists.

[Nihilist Virus]

And I asked you whether you want to defend subjective morality or an evil god ... I'm still waiting.

So basically you don't have an answer.

If you can't provide a specific case of God being unjust, than you have no basis of accusing him of being evil in the first place... 

So when you're ready to finally provide what I asked, you just know show your accusations have no basis.

Umm, the guy who was all over me trying to tell me I don't know what an ellipsis is now confuses "than" with "then." Classic. Remove thine plank from thine eye.

Can we provide a specific case of God being unjust? I assume this is a complete joke. How about flooding the entire world, including infants, without even bothering to give a good reason why. All we get is that he was generally dissatisfied... with his own creation... despite the fact that he knew the future to begin with.

Now, I understand that your point is that atheists are hypocrites for labeling God as evil for killing children and then turning around and advocating a woman's right to commit abortion. I don't think you've given any real thought to the issue.

See, atheists generally understand that killing things is bad. And we don't need a warlord deity to inform us of this. But the law and morality do not always coincide, and in fact they cannot. You cannot make it illegal to commit adultery even if it produces real harm and suffering. So is it wrong for a woman to commit abortion? Well, we need only ask ourselves this: If we had unlimited technology and resources, would we ever commit abortions? Clearly not, so this is obviously an issue of practicality. It is for practical reasons that abortion is allowed, despite the fact that it is killing a living thing.

If you *actually* give two thirds of a shit about the unborn, prove to us all that you are truly pro-life by starting a petition for a compromise: no meat, no abortion, no death penalty. Take death off the menu across the board. Sure, we can implement this slowly over a decade or so to avert economic crisis. But get the damn ball rolling or shut the fuck up. You have a FaceBook account, or the ability to create one. You have the ability to stand in front of a grocery store. Get out there and make a difference or we will just not give a shit what you have to say. Fuck man, take up your cross or GTFO.

[Huggy Bear]

So you're fine with calling collective punishment just?

In the case of Noah, God warned them of the flood for 120 years before it happened.

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah God said he would spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people living there.

Genesis 18
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord.
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?
25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes,
28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

In the case of Nineveh they repented and God spared them, see how it works? The moral is do what God tells you to do. If God decided to take his people up tomorrow and destroy the earth, are you going to call that unjust too? after all the warning you've been given?

---

God did originally make man and woman equal.

Did you forget that the woman was cursed in the garden of Eden so that man was made to rule over her?

Mm...  So woman suggests man do something.  Man does it.  Woman gets punished.  Woman gets enslaved.   God is not only unjust, but also has a penchant for misogyny, apparently.

 

Adam was doing fine for at least 1000 years before Eve showed up...

Also, pretty unjust (cruel/evil is a more accurate description, actually) to subject an entire population of innocent women to life-long sexual assault in the name of the perceived wrong doing of one human.

Lifelong sexual assault? what?

---

If we are talking legality, then legally a corporation is considered a person... what's  your point?

I gave you the medical definition, which defined a fetus as "unborn offspring", human offspring ARE children, but I see you opt to ignore medical definitions when it's convenient.

Just so were clear, are you saying that an unborn has no right to live? By what authority does one make this determination?

None of it changes the stupidity of being pro life.

It amuses me that you said I was trying to argue semantics but it's you who is arguing semantics.

Yes absolutely no right. It's the mother's decision.

So you admit that an unborn child has no rights and the mother can destroy it if she wants to...

That statement is why you're a hypocrite.

[Edwardo Piet]

Fetuses do have no rights. Hypocrite how?

[Thumpalumpacus]

So you're fine with calling collective punishment just?

In the case of Noah, God warned them of the flood for 120 years before it happened.

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah God said he would spare the city if he could find just 10 righteous people living there.

But Huggy, we're talking about women here, don't you remember? That was the specific example of collective punishment that was bruited. Why are you arguing the "justice" of other examples? We can get into those later, sure. But address this point in its own, ahem, context.

Do you consider the collective punishment of women for Eve's "sin" just, or not? Explain why.

I notice you still haven't answered my other question yet ... must not want to hear me answer yours much, I gather.