The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 27, 2018

jason_delisle said:
The passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. The soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

So, I take it that all those women - having had their homes destroyed, their possessions pillaged, and their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers murdered - every one of them, all willingly consented to marry the men who had done the destroying, pillaging and murdering, and subsequently engaged in consenting sexual relations with them. Is that what I'm expected to believe?

I am proud to say I have no idea what it feels like to have a moral philosophy that necessitates saying such things.

quatona · Dec 27, 2018

jason_delisle said:
So if there is not an "intentionally externally given purpose" for humanity, is it then possible for humanity to have a purpose that is anything other than subjective opinion?

Again: Depends how you use the words purpose, reason, why? etc.
If you are using them specifically to ask for an intentionally externally given purpose", then no.
Sorry, but no matter how hard you try my answer won´t change.

But for some reason you seem to be under the impression that I am out to establish an "objective" (in your definition) "reason/purpose" (in your definition) for the existence of humanity. This would be a misunderstanding. As I have said (and explained why) before, I wouldn´t care much for such a "reason/purpose" even if it exists/existed - because I am neither a rock nor a knife, but a conscious, feeling, thinking, creating being. Even if I have/had been created intentionally, I am assuming that I haven´t been equipped with these faculties for nothing.

Ken-1122 · Dec 27, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
People who engage in apologetics for such things don't get to lecture me on morality.

I wasn't engaging in apologetics, and I wasn't lecturing you on morality, I was lecturing someone else who was engaging in apologetics while trying to lecture ME in morality.

Ed1wolf · Dec 27, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
No; I don’t need to get a psychiatric evaluation to make my case, just as everybody agrees on the effects of gravity, 1+1=2 using math, and everything else objective; if morality were objective everybody would agree on the objective moral issues. If you disagree, point to something else objective that cannot be demonstrated as true.

The difference is that morality goes to the heart of what it means to be human. Math and science doesnt. People have a lot invested in their moral behavior, they are concerned about what people think of them and what they consider fun and meaningful. Morality is distorted by people's experiences over time. So there is all this emotional baggage obscuring true objective morality. Very unlike scientific facts. That is why it is much more difficult to get people to agree on moral principles. But as I demonstrated earlier there are certain principles that most humans do agree on, but when you get deeper into morality all the human emotion and experiences start influencing morality and moral decisions. But none of this means that there is not an objective morality out there. You can see this occurring in some scientific theories like evolution and creation where it can impact how people live, emotion and experience can impact whether you believe a certain scientific theory to the point where objective facts get ignored. This also impacts politics as well, emotion can often blind people to the objective truth.

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 27, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
I wasn't engaging in apologetics, and I wasn't lecturing you on morality, I was lecturing someone else who was engaging in apologetics while trying to lecture ME in morality.

I know. I wasn't talking about you, but the people you're engaging with.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 27, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
It doesn't have to; my point is there was nothing stopping them from committing rape. Again; do you defend this practice? Would you defend it if it were done today?

Interesting double standard you established. It is ok to assume rape but not marriage? Nothing stopping them from committing rape? How about whole commandment against adultery (Exodus 20:14) and God's anger towards sexual immorality (Numbers 25:1-3)?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 27, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
So, I take it that all those women - having had their homes destroyed, their possessions pillaged, and their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers murdered - every one of them, all willingly consented to marry the men who had done the destroying, pillaging and murdering, and subsequently engaged in consenting sexual relations with them. Is that what I'm expected to believe?

I am proud to say I have no idea what it feels like to have a moral philosophy that necessitates saying such things.

Perhaps not all women married their captors, but it happened a lot more than you think. Remember, we are not talking about a modern day western culture where a single woman could just get a job in a corporate office. They, for the most part, depended on a husband to provide for them. Many did willingly choose to marry and assimilate into Israelite cultures as opposed to starving.

Ken-1122 · Dec 28, 2018

Ed1wolf said:
The difference is that morality goes to the heart of what it means to be human. Math and science doesnt. People have a lot invested in their moral behavior, they are concerned about what people think of them and what they consider fun and meaningful. Morality is distorted by people's experiences over time. So there is all this emotional baggage obscuring true objective morality. Very unlike scientific facts. That is why it is much more difficult to get people to agree on moral principles. But as I demonstrated earlier there are certain principles that most humans do agree on, but when you get deeper into morality all the human emotion and experiences start influencing morality and moral decisions. But none of this means that there is not an objective morality out there. You can see this occurring in some scientific theories like evolution and creation where it can impact how people live, emotion and experience can impact whether you believe a certain scientific theory to the point where objective facts get ignored. This also impacts politics as well, emotion can often blind people to the objective truth.

Are you going to answer my question?

Ken-1122 · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
Interesting double standard you established. It is ok to assume rape but not marriage? Nothing stopping them from committing rape? How about whole commandment against adultery (Exodus 20:14) and God's anger towards sexual immorality (Numbers 25:1-3)?

Are you going to answer my question?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
I wasn't engaging in apologetics, and I wasn't lecturing you on morality, I was lecturing someone else who was engaging in apologetics while trying to lecture ME in morality.

Off topic question: Member since 2011 with over 6,000 posts? How are you considered a "Newbie" according to CF?

Ken-1122 · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
Off topic question: Member since 2011 with over 6,000 posts? How are you considered a "Newbie" according to CF?

Dang! Thought you were going to finally answer my question.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Are you going to answer my question?

Well, until you can prove to me that they were commanded to rape the women, there is nothing to answer. You are asking me if I agree or disagree with a red herring you have failed to prove actually happened. Furthermore, I provided scriptural references which specifically describes what you are assuming to be forbidden. If any Israelites did rape any of the women, they would have been in direct violation of the Law and would have been either stoned to death or forced to provide for that woman for the rest of her life. To suggest that God commanded the Israelites to rape the women is to suggest that they were ordered to do the very thing that resulted the Israelite leaders execution as described in Numbers 25. This makes absolutely no sense.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
Dang! Thought you were going to finally answer my question.

I answered. Just going through the posts in order received.

Ken-1122 · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
Well, until you can prove to me that they were commanded to rape the women, there is nothing to answer.

I never said anybody was COMMANDED to rape, I said what was allowed likely resulted in rape.

jason_delisle said:
You are asking me if I agree or disagree with a red herring you have failed to prove actually happened.

No; I asked would you justify this practice today! If you believe morality is objective, and you believe what they did was morally justified back then, that would mean you should believe it would be morally justified during war today! Right?

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Ken-1122 said:
No; I asked would you justify this practice today! If you believe morality is objective, and you believe what they did was morally justified back then, that would mean you should believe it would be morally justified during war today! Right?

"The purpose of the holy war was the eradication of impure elements, whether persons or property, from a given geographic region. This passage harks back to the idolatrous activity of Baal-peor (Number 25) and sets the stage for the instructions in Numbers 33:50-56 for occupying the promised land by dispossessing the Canaanites and eradicating the marks of their false religion. Hence it is integral to the main theme developed in the book of Numbers: the dangers of rebellion and idolatry. You who suggest this holy-war mentality was a crude feature of ancient cultures and not in keeping with God's purpose for humanity, have ignored the fact that these instructions were applicable at th is critical point in the formation of the theocracy of Israel. Their very survival as the holy community of faith was at stake. Chapter 31 is consistent with the directives given in other pentateuchal passages, including Deuteronomy 7:5, 24-25; 12:1-12; 20:16-20; and 21:10-14. However, the law of Christ , the law of love, supersedes the instructions for Israel in the era of Moses and Joshua. While God still abhors every kind of evil in society, and the people of God must diligently oppose its every expression, "holy war" of the kind recorded here is not the proper response." (CSB Apologetics Study Bible P. 204)

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
Perhaps not all women married their captors, but it happened a lot more than you think. Remember, we are not talking about a modern day western culture where a single woman could just get a job in a corporate office. They, for the most part, depended on a husband to provide for them. Many did willingly choose to marry and assimilate into Israelite cultures as opposed to starving.

A choice between marriage and sex with your captors VS starvation is not a free choice. It's coercion, brought about by circumstances that were foisted on these women by those same captors.

There is a word for sexual relations that are brought about through coercion, and not freely chosen. That word is rape, and you are currently engaged in apologetics for it.

As such, you don't get to tell me your moral philosophy is superior to mine. Ever.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
A choice between marriage and sex with your captors VS starvation is not a free choice. It's coercion, brought about by circumstances that were foisted on these women by those same captors.

There is a word for sexual relations that are brought about through coercion, and not freely chosen. That word is rape, and you are currently engaged in apologetics for it.

As such, you don't get to tell me your moral philosophy is superior to mine. Ever.

That is a stretch if I ever seen one. If a single mother who is struggling to provide for her child decided to marry a man for his money, is that rape? Was Ruth being raped by Boaz because she, a Moabite woman, sought marriage with him?

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
That is a stretch if I ever seen one.

It's not a stretch. It's definitional. A choice between starvation and sex with your captor is not a free choice. It's coerced sex. Coerced sex is rape.

jason_delisle said:
If a single mother who is struggling to provide for her child decided to marry a man for his money, is that rape?

What a crappy analogy. Here's a better one,

If a single mother who is struggling to provide for her child decided to marry a man for his money, and that man intentionally put her in that struggling situation, and further provided the cirsumstances such that she had no other possible choice than to marry him or let herself and her child starve, is that rape?

The answer to that is yes.

What does it feel like to engage in such apologetics? Is it torturous, or do you feel nothing at all? I don't know which answer would disturb me more.

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ) · Dec 28, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
It's not a stretch. It's definitional. A choice between starvation and sex with your captor is not a free choice. It's coerced sex. Coerced sex is rape.

What a crappy analogy. Here's a better one,

If a single mother who is struggling to provide for her child decided to marry a man for his money, and that man intentionally put her in that struggling situation, and further provided the cirsumstances such that she had no other possible choice than to marry him or let herself and her child starve, is that rape?

The answer to that is yes.

What does it feel like to engage in such apologetics? Is it torturous, or do you feel nothing at all? I don't know which answer would disturb me more.

Was Ruth, a Moabite woman, being raped by Boaz because she sought to marry him?

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 28, 2018

jason_delisle said:
Was Ruth, a Moabite woman, being raped by Boaz because she sought to marry him?

I will not be responding to any further crappy non-analogies.

You are faced with the fact that coerced sex is rape. You could engage in the monumental feat of childlike naïveté that states these women only married their captors, but never had sex with them. I've seen some rape apologists use that pathetic excuse before.

I have a much better way out: stop engaging in rape apologetics.

The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

"God"? What do you mean??

Newbie

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Similar threads