- Jun 18, 2014
- 30,521
- 16,866
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
So you are judging Bronze Age societies by 21st century standards?
That does not work.
Upvote
0
The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective
- Thread starter Zed Aliz Zed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- good and evil law morality
- Status
That does not work.
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I wouldn't call them '21st century standards'. That's only relevant in so far as it happens to be the 21st century at the present moment.
But essentially, you are correct in your accusation. I am, in fact, not a cultural relativist.
You are free to argue that, of course. Just don't then turn around and try to argue for an absolute, unchanging morality derived from on high. You make a complete incoherent mess of such a concept when you argue for cultural relativism.
Upvote
0
Thanks for answering my question.
So if I understand you correctly, as long as the United States is involved in a “Holy War” say against Godless Russia or China, or perhaps all of those Middle Eastern Countries stuck on Allah; when we defeat them, you would have no problem with our soldiers going through the defeated country and killing all of the civilians; (except for the virgins, the soldiers are allowed to keep them for themselves) in order to eradicate the impure elements, whether persons or property right?
Upvote
0
Well, until you can prove that Numbers 31:17-18 is talking about "coerced sex", you are arguing a strawman by yourself. Let me know when you are done. Btw, Ruth was a Moabite woman you say was raped by her captors based on your stretched definition of rape.
Upvote
0
Ed1wolf
Well-Known Member
- Dec 26, 2002
- 2,928
- 178
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, you did and I was not just referring to outside the earth, I was referring to the universe as a whole. Like when I gave you the example of a mansion with a tiny amount of mold in one part of the house. The house supports mold even if the owner does not allow mold to grow any other place in the house, it still supports mold. The universe as whole supports human life even if there are some parts of it that humans will never inhabit. But the incredible truth is that even those areas that we will never be able to travel, if they did not exist, then WE would not exist. This is the amazing design of the universe and its properties inculcated into it by the Creator.
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
You already did it yourself. You said their other choice was starvation. That circumstance was foisted on them by their captors.
Hence, coercion. Hence, rape.
Coerced sex is not a 'stretched definition' of rape. It's rape. And you are an apologist for it.
You should stop being that.
Upvote
0
No; you said they would have explored other planets. Unless you know of some other planets that exist within the Earth, you were referring to outside the Earth. As I said before, outside of Earths atmosphere, is hostile to human life.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Out of the three options "allows for human life", "does not prevent human life" and "support human life" you arbitrarily pick the last and strongest one.
Of course, even worse would be "are designed for human life".
Upvote
0
Eight Foot Manchild
His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
- Sep 9, 2010
- 2,389
- 1,605
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
I have already responded to this, but here it is again for the sake of anyone who may be reading along:
Your analogy is garbage. An honest comparison would be if the man himself put the woman in her desperate situation, and made it such that her only choice was between marriage and sex or starvation. And that, unequivocally, would be rape.
At the very least, you could try making new crappy arguments instead of just repeating yourself.
It's not my definition of 'rape'. Coerced sex is rape. Full stop.
But suppose I play along. You don't like that word, so let's call it something else. Let's call it 'shmape'. Let's make believe rape only refers explicitly to sex that is physically forced, and coerced sex isn't rape, it's 'shmape'.
Ok. In that case, you are an apologist for coerced sex. That is still reprehensible, and you still don't get to lecture me on moral philosophy. Ever.
You have it backwards. You are trying - and failing utterly - to force scripture into something other than what it is. You should stop doing that.
Or don't. By all means, keep arguing on behalf of your religion. You make an example of yourself in so doing.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ed1wolf
Well-Known Member
- Dec 26, 2002
- 2,928
- 178
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Single
Yes, but probably since He knew we were going to choose evil, He did not want us to spread it to other planets. That was one reason He flooded the earth because we were getting too evil.
No, but 100% of people I have met including ex cons I know do not have your view of love. How do you tell the difference between love and hate? Do believe Hate Crimes exist? If so, Should Love Crimes be treated differently? If not, why?
Why? If they did it out of love?
Gay activists use the argument when claiming discrimination. They dont believe they should be discriminated against just because of how and who they love. Do you agree? If so, then why should someone who abuses their wife be punished?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Except for the fact that this is not what was happening. The Book of Ruth is more accurate to what the truth is. Nobody here is defending rape. Not even your definition of rape. You are just trying to force the scripture to mean something that isn't there. Here is another example. If a Japanese woman became widowed as a result of her husband's fighting for the imperial army and later chooses to marry a U.S. soldier, is that Japanese woman being raped?
Upvote
0
I just had to jump on this comment for a moment and ask you a question. According to your secular world view. How can you possibly objectively justify rape as reprehensible? How is rape being reprehensible anything more than your subjective opinion? Given the fact that the standard for morality, according to a secular worldview, is merely the subjective opinion of the majority which imposes their opinions onto the minority and that the demographics of the majority varies with time and culture, what right do you have to make the assertion that your moral opinion is morally superior to the moral standard of people from a different culture at a different time? Who are you to say that Islamic countries are morally corrupt because they make women wear face coverings yet it is okay for women in the west to dress provocatively? I don't get to lecture you on moral philosophy? Who are you to lecture anyone on moral philosophy according to your secular subjective standards and how can you justify your moral philosophy to be superior to mine?
Edit: I just wanted to emphasize that I am in no way condoning rape or saying it is okay. I am only asking how you can possibly justify your position against rape according to a secular standard of morality.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nowhere does it say that the woman would perish? Ruth, a widowed Moabite woman went to work gleaning the fields of Boaz. There were also commandments which required every farmer to leave 10% of their harvest for the poor. A Moabite woman willingly choosing to marry an Israelite man and assimilate into Israelite society because she was not content with their standard of living situation does not equal rape. This is no different than the widow of a Japanese Imperial soldier choosing to marry a U.S. soldier for the sole purpose of improving her livelihood.
And I will ask you the same question I asked Manchild. How is your subjective secular moral standard superior to mine or anyone else?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Status
Similar threads
