Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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".
No it doesn't. What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman under OT law?I believe this will address your concerns...
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.@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.
No it doesn't. What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman under OT law?
@True Counterphobia Since that was only a portion of my post, I guess you don't want me poking at your arguments after all.
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.
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.Pretty sure it would be the same as if she was not divorced, but a virgin.
And I asked which one first.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.
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.
And I asked which one first.
And??? What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman in OT law?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."
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:I don't really care which one you do first. Why not do both at the same time?
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
And??? What is the penalty for raping a divorced woman in OT law?
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"?
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. lolIt means, it was just something that did not happen.
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.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.
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
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.
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.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.
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?!Yes, really. The sexual immorality of today is rampant and evil.
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 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?
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?Okay, suppose I change it to only. What next?
No it does not. With the scientific method it is not possible to rule out that God (or in fact any god) exists.The problem is that scientific inquiry rules out the possibility of God.
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?!
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?
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?