An honest look at Christians and Atheists and what they don't see, maybe.

[All Becomes New]

You know that old story about the two women arguing about who the real mother of some baby was, so they go to Solomon and he says to cut the baby in half? Those women were prostitutes. If prostitution was illegal, they both would have been locked up or stoned to death or whatever.

Now you said that if you have sex with a person you married them. So how does a woman be a prostitute if she just marries the first jon that comes along?

Depending on who got raped, yep. That's why I asked specifically what the penalty for raping a divorced woman is. Still can't find it? That's because rape is ignored in the law for the most part. There's like one law that makes a concession in the case of rape, but that's it.

I didn't claim the Bible wasn't true because of this. I'm claiming that it isn't a very good source of objective morality if it doesn't think "thou shalt not rape" is important enough to mention.

Yes, let's be reasonable. The answer to my question of "which one do you want me to poke?" is "both". The unreasonable answer is to cryptically pretend as though there weren't two separate and distinct arguments you presented. Now that I know you want me to poke both, I'll ask, which one first?

I said that I would believe they were being truthful, I doubt they are accurate. They are mistaken, not dishonest.

I didn't say you had to judge your friend. If my buddy says, "Today I met a female with good looks who cooks and cleans" and I say, "I don't believe you" that doesn't mean I'm calling him a liar.

But the point is that "there is an odd number of jellybeans" is not a belief you hold. And not holding that belief doesn't require you to believe that "there is an even number of jellybeans".

I believe this will address your concerns...

Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Moral Orel]

I believe this will address your concerns...

No it doesn't. What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman under OT law?

 

[Moral Orel]

@True Counterphobia Since that was only a portion of my post, I guess you don't want me poking at your arguments after all.

 

[Larniavc]

@Larnievc,

So your position is that it is NOT true that "If something begins to exist, it has a cause" AND "The universe began to exist" is that right?

We can talk about whether or not this means there was ever "nothing" but that is besides the point I am tying to make with my Kalam argument.

Kinda. With the physics that exist today we can’t go beyond the Big Bang. But there are a few theories about ‘bounce’ universes, M-Branes colliding in a ‘bulk’ that exists in 11 dimensions.

It’s a bit of a West West in terms of scientific orthodoxy in this area, I’m told. It’s a Nobel prize for the person who can rule out the competing hypotheses and establish a viable theory.

 

[All Becomes New]

No it doesn't. What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman under OT law?

Pretty sure it would be the same as if she was not divorced, but a virgin.

 

[All Becomes New]

@True Counterphobia Since that was only a portion of my post, I guess you don't want me poking at your arguments after all.

Not sure what you mean. I explicitly asked you to give your take on both of these. No one's forcing you to, so if you would rather not, then fine.

 

[All Becomes New]

Kinda. With the physics that exist today we can’t go beyond the Big Bang. But there are a few theories about ‘bounce’ universes, M-Branes colliding in a ‘bulk’ that exists in 11 dimensions.

It’s a bit of a West West in terms of scientific orthodoxy in this area, I’m told. It’s a Nobel prize for the person who can rule out the competing hypotheses and establish a viable theory.

The problem is that scientific inquiry rules out the possibility of God.

 

[Moral Orel]

Pretty sure it would be the same as if she was not divorced, but a virgin.

Nope. That law is just for virgins. Show me one that doesn't explicitly mention who it applies to, and then you can apply it generally.

Not sure what you mean. I explicitly asked you to give your take on both of these. No one's forcing you to, so if you would rather not, then fine.

And I asked which one first.

 

[All Becomes New]

Nope. That law is just for virgins. Show me one that doesn't explicitly mention who it applies to, and then you can apply it generally.

As per the article I linked you: "In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her."

And I asked which one first.

I don't really care which one you do first. Why not do both at the same time?

 

[Moral Orel]

As per the article I linked you: "In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her."

And??? What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman in OT law?

I don't really care which one you do first. Why not do both at the same time?

Ok, I'll pick. I'm not doing them simultaneously because you'll just get them all jumbled up. So let's do this one, since you cooked it up yourself:

1. There are entities that change over time
2. These entities cannot account for themselves
3. A greatest conceivable entity can account for these entities
4. Therefore, there is a greatest conceivable entity

What does it mean to "account for"?

 

[All Becomes New]

And??? What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman in OT law?

It means, it was just something that did not happen.

Ok, I'll pick. I'm not doing them simultaneously because you'll just get them all jumbled up. So let's do this one, since you cooked it up yourself:

What does it mean to "account for"?

Examples: Measurement, Determining, Contingency, and the state of Motion they are in.

So basically, this means that entities can't measure, determine, be contingent upon, or determine their own motion.

 

[Moral Orel]

It means, it was just something that did not happen.

No one raped, that's your defense. I mean, there's stories in the Bible (you already mentioned one) of girls being raped. They made laws against virgins being raped, so there must have been virgin rape. But your defense is that rapists would only rape virgins. Really. lol

Examples: Measurement, Determining, Contingency, and the state of Motion they are in.

So basically, this means that entities can't measure, determine, be contingent upon, or determine their own motion.

I'm an entity. I travelled to work today at (on average) 30mph for a distance of 4.7 miles. I could have called off, but I chose to go in. How have I not measured and determined my own motion? I don't know what it means to "be contingent upon my own motion", so you'll have to explain that one too.

 

[All Becomes New]

No one raped, that's your defense. I mean, there's stories in the Bible (you already mentioned one) of girls being raped. They made laws against virgins being raped, so there must have been virgin rape. But your defense is that rapists would only rape virgins. Really. lol

Yes, really. The sexual immorality of today is rampant and evil.

I'm an entity. I travelled to work today at (on average) 30mph for a distance of 4.7 miles. I could have called off, but I chose to go in. How have I not measured and determined my own motion? I don't know what it means to "be contingent upon my own motion", so you'll have to explain that one too.

I think what you are not seeing here is that if you ARE able to do these things, it means you have Free Will. Do you believe humans have Free Will?

 

[Moral Orel]

1. There are entities that change over time
2. These entities cannot account for themselves
3. A greatest conceivable entity can account for these entities
4. Therefore, there is a greatest conceivable entity

Let's do another one. Your argument isn't valid. #3 has to be changed to "Only a greatest conceivable entity can account for these entities" to make it valid. You have to rule out the possibility of there being a less-than-the-greatest entity accounting for the other entities.

 

[All Becomes New]

Let's do another one. Your argument isn't valid. #3 has to be changed to "Only a greatest conceivable entity can account for these entities" to make it valid. You have to rule out the possibility of there being a less-than-the-greatest entity accounting for the other entities.

Okay, suppose I change it to only. What next?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, really. The sexual immorality of today is rampant and evil.

But they were raping! Your defense is that they were selective about who they raped, and only raped the most vulnerable, and their sexual immorality was less rampant and evil?!

I think what you are not seeing here is that if you ARE able to do these things, it means you have Free Will. Do you believe humans have Free Will?

Are you a Calvanist? I thought free will was super important to most Christians, but you're saying I ain't got it? I actually don't think we have free will. You're saying I'm right about that?

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay, suppose I change it to only. What next?

Then you'd have to defend that premise. Why does it require a "greatest conceivable entity"? If you don't change it, then you're saying it's possible for things other than God to account for stuff, so your argument fails that way. Why is a "greatest conceivable entity" required?

 

[Larniavc]

The problem is that scientific inquiry rules out the possibility of God.

No it does not. With the scientific method it is not possible to rule out that God (or in fact any god) exists.

That is what is meant by science being ‘tentative’. There is always the possibility that new information can be uncovered.

 

[All Becomes New]

But they were raping! Your defense is that they were selective about who they raped, and only raped the most vulnerable, and their sexual immorality was less rampant and evil?!

As per the story from Genesis I told you about, Raping was NOT something commonly done and when it was done, it received very harsh consequences. We are MORE laxed with rape today then they were in Bible times. I say this because if there was no Law about rape for a divorced woman, it tells me that is because it just didn't happen. And if it didn't happen then it was because it was unthinkable that someone would do that. So from that, with all our talk in this day about things are getting "better" with examples like this in the Bible, where rape is pretty much unthinkable, it tells me people may have been far more moral at that time then we are today. So much for being "progressive" I guess.

Are you a Calvanist? I thought free will was super important to most Christians, but you're saying I ain't got it? I actually don't think we have free will. You're saying I'm right about that?

I am a Calvinist, but I am also a compatibilist.

 

[All Becomes New]

Then you'd have to defend that premise. Why does it require a "greatest conceivable entity"? If you don't change it, then you're saying it's possible for things other than God to account for stuff, so your argument fails that way. Why is a "greatest conceivable entity" required?

The only alternative I can think of is that everything is happening at the same time and causing itself. That seems far less likely to me.