For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[Lion Hearted Man]

Yes.

So IF the Bible said "rape is ok", would that make rape ok? Simple yes or no.

 

[HosannaHM]

So IF the Bible said "rape is ok", would that make rape ok? Simple yes or no.

Hmm.. bit of a stretch don't you think? Sounds like your just trying to trap him in his words

 

[AV1611VET]

Hmm.. bit of a stretch don't you think? Sounds like your just trying to trap him in his words

Ya -- he can now scratch his head and wonder why I'm not going to answer him.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Hmm.. bit of a stretch don't you think? Sounds like your just trying to trap him in his words

No. It's not. This video explains it well:

[youtube]DNWqvEIcJpo[/youtube]

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Ya -- he can now scratch his head and wonder why I'm not going to answer him.

Because if you are consistent, you'll answer yes. But your lack of a reply proves that you really don't think things are moral just because the Bible says so. You have a moral compass independent of the Bible, and you modify the Bible to adhere to your own sense of morality.

Just follow the example - IF God said you were allowed to rape, wouldn't that mean rape is OK? Of course not. Because we know rape is wrong. How do we know? Well, that's the whole point.

 

[mzungu]

Here is an interesting documentary that may shed some light on creationism: Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism | Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[HosannaHM]

Because if you are consistent, you'll answer yes. But your lack of a reply proves that you really don't think things are moral just because the Bible says so. You have a moral compass independent of the Bible, and you modify the Bible to adhere to your own sense of morality.

Just follow the example - IF God said you were allowed to rape, wouldn't that mean rape is OK? Of course not. Because we know rape is wrong. How do we know? Well, that's the whole point.

But it isn't in there is it? Even in the context of this question it's not being pulled from the Bible. So we can still believe in the text. That's like trying to contradict our feelings of belief with a variable that isn't there.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

But it isn't in there is it? Even in the context of this question it's not being pulled from the Bible. So we can still believe in the text. That's like trying to contradict our feelings of belief with a variable that isn't there.

It's called a hypothetical situation. And the question I am posing is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma, which dates back to Socrates. In philosophy and ethics, most of the learning is done through case studies where you study hypothetical situations.

One more question. If a man has sex with both his wife and her mother, should they be put to death?

 

[Hespera]

Because if you are consistent, you'll answer yes. But your lack of a reply proves that you really don't think things are moral just because the Bible says so. You have a moral compass independent of the Bible, and you modify the Bible to adhere to your own sense of morality.

Just follow the example - IF God said you were allowed to rape, wouldn't that mean rape is OK? Of course not. Because we know rape is wrong. How do we know? Well, that's the whole point.

According to the jewish chronicles, when they did sack a city and rape the girls, it was with gods permission.

You could ask me how I know its wrong, but maybe that doesnt count.

Apparently this is between 'god" and the guys.

 

[HosannaHM]

It's called a hypothetical situation. And the question I am posing is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma, which dates back to Socrates. In philosophy and ethics, most of the learning is done through case studies where you study hypothetical situations.

One more question. If a man has sex with both his wife and her mother, should they be put to death?

Thanks to the New covenant no they should not. But they should know it is wrong.

I'm not Clirus

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Thanks to the New covenant no they should not. But they should know it is wrong.

I'm not Clirus

So at one time, rape was moral and ok? But it's not anymore? And is that the only reason you don't rape?

 

[Hespera]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the Old Testament Moses encourages his men to use captured virgins for their own sexual pleasure, i.e. to rape them. After urging his men to kill the male captives and female captive who are not virgins he says: "But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Numbers 31: 18). God then explicitly rewards Moses by urging him to distribute the spoils. He does not rebuke Moses or his men (Numbers 31: 25-27). [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Second, when rape is condemned in the Old Testament the woman's rights and her psychological welfare are ignored. For example: "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days" (Deuteronomy 22; 28-29). Here the victim of rape is as treated the property of the father. Since the rapist has despoiled the father's property he must pay a bridal fee. The women apparently has no say in the matter and is forced to marry the person who raped her. Notice also if they are not discovered, no negative judgment is forthcoming. The implicit message seems to be that if you rape an unbetrothed virgin, be sure not to get caught. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-25). Again the assumption is that the rapist dispoiled the property of another man and so must pay with this life. Concern for the welfare of the victim does not seem to matter. Moreover, it is assumed that in all cases that a rape victim could cry for help and if she did, she would be heard and rescued. Both of these assumptions are very dubious and sensitive to the contextual aspects of rape. [/FONT]

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks to the New covenant no they should not. But they should know it is wrong.

I'm not Clirus

He's just trying to get Darwin off the hook.

Here's the point that started all this:

Isn't Darwin considered the "Father of Evolution" or something? despite the fact that he fathered ten children by inbreeding?

Forty posts ago!

 

[HosannaHM]

So at one time, rape was moral and ok? But it's not anymore? And is that the only reason you don't rape?

It was before the law was set. Before the 10 commandments no one knew God's will (right from wrong), and they struggled afterwards because of their sin.

Some countries have different standards of this that don't appeal to Christianity. In some african societies, it is common for men to rape women. But yes, i believe it is completely wrong

 

[Inan3]

Once again, you're denying my experience. Please read up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. You have no right to claim that I was not sincere with my beliefs, and frankly, I find it extremely offensive and revealing of your poor moral character to do so..

Show me one place that I said you were NOT sincere with your beliefs. Just because you "think" someone is saying something does not mean they are. That's where deception comes in.

I'm not interested in the NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY. I don't need to follow those concepts to speak my heart. You can judge my actions by them if you choose but I suggest you will again be wrong in your interrpretation of what I say if you do.

The universe was not created in 6 days some <10,000 thousand years ago with all the current forms of animals created independently. The earth is ~4 billion years old, the universe is ~14 billion years old, and life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. This is reality. You can believe that your holy book trumps this, but then you will be forced to admit that all science is fundamentally flawed (even the science that allows you to take metformin and a beta-blocker)..

First of all I never said the universe was created in 6 days. Quite frankly, I do not believe that and I do not believe the scriptures teach that so ... wrong again. And I do believe we have a common ancester ... It was Adam. There is no evidence of any other thing.

I fail to see what your scaremongering has to do with morality. I am morally superior to the God of the Bible. My ten commandments would include provisions against rape, child abuse, and slavery. Apparently your God doesn't think of those as very important issues..

Just as you have stated what you believe above... I have EVERY right to NOT believe what you believe. Just because I do not, and because I believe something different does not mean I am "scaremongering" or immoral. IF you are scared by ANYTHING I say, I suggest it is in your own heart and NOT what I said. I state what I believe to be the truth and no amount of YOUR criticizing me or ANYONE ELSE on this forum, for that matter, is going to make me back down OR feel guilty. I believe what I believe and I have EVERY RIGHT to state it. So BACKOFF on your own self-righteous behavior!!

Jesus is not the answer when I am doing scientific research or studying. I am in medical school right now, and all of the research that makes patients' lives better is because of science, and nothing else. I refuse to let dogma trump science..

Oh please... that's another thing you guys deceive yourselves in, talk about sick and tired... you scientists and doctors who think you are making patients' lives better. One thing that happens by the time you get to the blessed age of 62, is you get to go around the block a couple of times and find out a few things. What I have seen in my SIXTY-TWO YEARS is that OFTEN TIMES, and I mean OFTEN, doctors and all the DRUGS that people have been duped into believing they need, have done more DAMAGE to society than good. "Some" of you might start out with the lofty ideals to help people, but as time goes by you fall into the same old same old and just want to make money and get all those drug company bonuses, and those promotion which come with all that coveted recognition. So since you neglected to mention it I thought I would.. what about all those people who have been KILLED or maimed for life by so called science? You neglect to tell of that in your self exhaltation.

Science is the only reason you've lived to your 60s. Vaccination and antibiotics got you to middle age, and I would venture to bet you've got at least a couple chronic conditions you're being treated for like hypertension, cholesterol, or hyperglycemia. You have science to thank for the fact that you're alive..

Wrong again. The only vaccination I got was for polio, and I was a child and it wasn't for sure, that I would get it even if I didn't get that vaccination. I don't use anitbiotics because of the damage they do to your body and besides that, I don't get sick! I suggest you don't bet because you would lose. I have none of those diseases and if I did I wouldn't take the drugs that counter work with my body just because some doctor was paid by the drug companies a bonus for suggesting I take something, in order that they can "try it out" on me and see if it works... AND AND AND then leave me with a hoarde of side affects that I have to take more drugs (to pay scientists wages) hoping to overcome them, until one day I end up in the grave because of all the toxins and poisons they've pushed down our throats!!

No, I thank God He is Jehovah Rapha, the Lord that heals me, and also, the life which He generates to me by His Spirit resident within me. Just a couple of the many benefits of His great salvation.

God's instructions for treating leprosy include smearing blood on your house and doing a chant. Man's instructions are a regimen of antibiotics. I think I'll go with man on this one. When's the last time God gave us a vaccine? When you talk about "man's understanding", you're talking about science. Don't try and muddy words in order to make it okay for you to accept the science you like and reject the science you don't like..

Let me tell you this ... man couldn't think his way out of a paper bag if it wasn't for God. Any vaccine or ANY good thing comes down from God. Man wouldn't even have an understanding of the smallest amount of science if it were not for God.

Actually, Christians told me that one. My literary studies professor (an elder in his church) dashed all the preconceived notions of the Biblical literalists in my class by telling us the straight story about the Bible and its formation. Even conservative theologians these days accept the Documentary Hypothesis..

Did you ever hear of "wolves in sheep clothing"? or that "satan himself can transform into an angel of light???

No ELDER of the church or PASTOR or "WHATEVAAAA" is worth their salt or their position IF they are maligning the truth and siding up with the world in IT'S interrpretation of the scriptures or how they came about. That's all I have to say about that. I certainly am not going to worry about it. God is the judge and "by THEIR words they shall be justified and by THEIR words they shall be condemned."

I'm just following the evidence. Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh? The Genesis authors ripped off the flood story. Ever heard of the Egyptian Book of the Dead? The Exodus authors ripped it off for the ten commandments. You are seriously naive about your beliefs, and I doubt you have ever read any objective scholarly critique of the Bible or Christianity. Not that I want to burst the bubble for you. I just want you to realize that I had mine burst..

The Epic of Gilgamesh is just a confirmation of what the Bible says (not that it needed one).... written in the same time period as the scriptures. The authors of Genesis didn't need to "rip off" the flood story from a poem. Where do you think they got it from the internet? They probably didn't even know it was written. Although, the Bible does mention Gilgamesh but under the name of Nimrod.


At best "some" suggest that there are similarities but I don't find it that way at all. What I suggest to you is that God had just delivered the Israelites from Egypt. Every plague was an affront to the Egyptian gods and I might add, God blew them out of the water!!! The Ten Commandments were given to the Israelites shortly AFTER their exodus from Egypt. IF, and I stress "IF", there is ANY similarity to "some" of the wordings in ANY Egyptian writings then it would be to make it clear to the Israelites (because they had been there so long) just what God's commands were in regards to them. Just take the first of the 10 commandments... it says THOU SHALT NOT HAVE ANY GODS BEFORE ME!!! This attacks the very first one in the list of the Book of the Dead!! It is an apparent slap in the face to that document by GOD!!!


Finally, IF it were the decision of the "authors of Genesis" only (as you suggest) why would they take hold of some list on an obscure document and then slam Egypt all through the rest of Genesis? That doesn't even make sense.

And remember - I am completely open to the existence of God, should God decide to show himself or herself or itself to me. I am just waiting for God to do so. My heart is open. There is nothing I'd like more for a benevolent creator to exist, and that I'd have a chance to see my lost loved ones again. But I'd rather accept reality than live a delusion. So until God shakes me up, my heart will never be in it. I can't fake belief; I'm not that kind of person..

Don't hold your breath... You either come God's way or you don't get there.

And then you'll just reply by saying I'm a deceived fool who accepted Satan's lies and never was a Christian or some other immature reply like that..

I already said this minus the word "fool" (you added that). I don't need to say it again. It's your move now (not with me with God).


BUT....


How about this for a reply straight from Jesus Christ, my Lord, Whom I follow and serve. This is how He talked and dealt with unbelievers. I suppose you might call this "unChristian" or "immature", also.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Joh 8:45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Joh 8:46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

I am getting pretty sick and tired of you doubting my sincerity. Please stop.

Your words speak so loud I can't hear what you are saying. But it's okay with me. I've done my part. Enough said!!

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

It was before the law was set. Before the 10 commandments no one knew God's will (right from wrong), and they struggled afterwards because of their sin.

So how could they be held accountable for sin if they didn't have the law to show them right and wrong?

Some countries have different standards of this that don't appeal to Christianity. In some african societies, it is common for men to rape women. But yes, i believe it is completely wrong

Point me to the verse in the Bible that shows me that it is wrong. After all, morality is based on the Bible.

 

[Greg1234]

What's funny is when people who believe in magic think they can jump over scientific principles and destroy science by simply calling rational people antiquated terms from Philosophy 101.

Bio-chemistry is "magic" to a primitive man. When you go back in antiquity, go back some more till you get to the earliest man. The further the better.

 

[Greg1234]

So how could they be held accountable for sin if they didn't have the law to show them right and wrong?



Point me to the verse in the Bible that shows me that it is wrong. After all, morality is based on the Bible.

Hebrews already explains this. How is this new?

 

[HosannaHM]

So how could they be held accountable for sin if they didn't have the law to show them right and wrong?


Point me to the verse in the Bible that shows me that it is wrong. After all, morality is based on the Bible.

They were not under the law until the commandments. So they werent accountable.
Deuteronomy 22 compares rape with death

 

[Greg1234]

To you and all your creationist friends who dismiss science in favour of bronze age superstition:

When you attempt to call something bronze age superstition, think of writing a book on magnetic fields today, then a man uncovers it 2000 years from now, and another man is throwing a fit about how "ignorant" the writers were. And why stop at the bronze age? I'm sure you can go further back than that.