• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

True: Christian's have their own Moral Relativism

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Christian's often criticize intellectuals of "moral relativism," which is to say that good and evil are subjective constructs. This idea is derived from the fact that the truth itself is subjective, because different people experience life differently. What is good for some is bad for others and vice versa.

But in truth, the dogma of Christian beliefs stem from a morality that comes from whatever people who write scripture "say" God thinks, even if different views of God's morality contradict each other or conflict with your average Christian's morality. The Bible doesn't say that slavery or rape are wrong. In fact, the Bible encourages both. Yet that same Bible is used as a moral compass by people who believe rape is immoral. To a Christian, morality is relative to what scripture says God thinks.

How can not banning a wedding union between two men be "less" moral than selling children into sex-slavery to be raped for life? It isn't, unless you ask a Catholic priest. But all this from a book that encourages suicide in the name of God. Christ encouraged his flock to take up the cross and become martyred. But suicide is wrong and to the Catholics is a sin worthy of hell. How can suicide in the name of God be good, but suicide for no reason be sinful? It's all relative to what scripture claims about "God's will."

I find is hard to believe people who celebrate suicide, rape, slavery and torture would know the first thing about God's will. The Bible is full of it. Moral relativism down to the last detail. But I'll say this, the 11th commandment is worth following:

"Love thy neighbor as you love thy self." If only judgmental Christian's would follow it.

Thanks :peace
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,229
Reaction score
14,235
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nice troll thread. For one the Bible doesn't encourage rape or slavery.

What Christians believe is that the Bible was written by people through the inspiration of God's Holy Spirit, making it God's infallible word. I personally believe in absolute morals. I understand that mankind may legislate what is moral, but there will be an ultimate judgement for going against God's word and morals. People may accept something, but in the eyes of God it is sin and will be judged as sin in the end. Sure some people may have theological opinions, but I still believe in absolute morals set forth by God. Your anti-Christian sentiment has been duly noted though.
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."- The person who figures out where that is from gets a cookie!

But yeah, I believe in moral relativism. Only very few things are wrong no matter what, and every situation is different. Motivation for the act is extremely important.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Nice troll thread. For one the Bible doesn't encourage rape or slavery.

Read Numbers 31, and try again. God clearly allows virgins of the Midianites to be taken captive and distributed amongst his warriors for their use (i.e., rape).

While the Bible doesn't speak in favor of slavery, it certainly treats it as a normal and natural way of life.
 
Last edited:

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nice troll thread. For one the Bible doesn't encourage rape or slavery.
Nice try. Read the next quote and try again.
Read Numbers 31, and try again. God clearly allows virgins of the Midianites to be taken captive and distributed amongst his warriors for their use (i.e., rape).

While the Bible doesn't speak in favor of slavery, it certainly treats it as a normal and natural way of life.
Numbers is a good example of a "pro-rape" stance of scripture. Essentially war-wives are sex-slaves. But also note Leviticus 25:44-46

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"

Bible.cc Link

Pro slavery. So let's move on and never, ever, call this a "troll thread" again. Ok?

Thanks. :peace
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
"Nothing is true, everything is permitted."- The person who figures out where that is from gets a cookie!
I don't know the original quote, but it's a paradox isn't it? Sounds akin to "This statement is a lie."
But yeah, I believe in moral relativism. Only very few things are wrong no matter what, and every situation is different. Motivation for the act is extremely important.
I do have a moral code, but it's personalized. Because I realize that my morality is not the same as your morality.

Christian's don't have an absolute morality either, since there are things some Christian's believe is moral which other Christian's do not believe is moral. The examples of rape and slavery are just two examples. You could take the differences between Catholics and Protestants or Mennonites and Mormons.
 
Last edited:

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Nice try. Read the next quote and try again.

Numbers is a good example of a "pro-rape" stance of scripture. Essentially war-wives are sex-slaves. But also note Leviticus 25:44-46

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life"

Bible.cc Link

Pro slavery. So let's move on and never, ever, call this a "troll thread" again. Ok?

Thanks. :peace

As is the case with these troll threads, the op has a very sophomoric understanding of the Bible. The Numbers passage you list does not endorse rape, you just assumed it. It says to kill the men and women that sinned and keep the girls, that had not sinned, as servants...not slaves and not "wives."

Further, the Leviticus passages you list are followed by a very important passage saying that those that are being addressed must not treat their "slaves" poorly. It isn't like the slavery of the 1800's. These "slaves" were more like live in employees. They are fed and clothed in exchange for work. They are the ancient equivalent of maids and butlers.

As for moral equivalency, it is a term used (much as "grey area") by those needing an excuse to satisfy a cognitive dissonance that comes from making a choice that is personally beneficial but morally reprehensible.
 

peas_and_corn

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
16
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Could we please stop having threads that have titles which start with "The True -", "The Truth About -" etc etc? These titles portray the OP as arrogant, as if it's the only way things can be perceived and *clearly* anyone who disagrees with the OP is patently wrong. While it's possible that's not the intention, it's certainly the way it comes across.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
As is the case with these troll threads, the op has a very sophomoric understanding of the Bible.
At least I take the Bible at face value. You seem to interpret it to mean whatever you want.

It literally says, "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." (young girls?)

Deuteronomy 20:14

"But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (If you rape a virgin, you have to marry her LOL)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB (God will force your wife to be raped)

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB (In war, take wives of your captives and rape them)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.... After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her." (relations means rape, buddy)

Maybe instead of "trying" to insult me, you should read the Bible and get a better grasp of it's content? Think about it.
Further, the Leviticus passages you list are followed by a very important passage saying that those that are being addressed must not treat their "slaves" poorly. It isn't like the slavery of the 1800's. These "slaves" were more like live in employees. They are fed and clothed in exchange for work. They are the ancient equivalent of maids and butlers.
Way to stick your foot in your mouth.

The passage literally says, "You may buy slaves." Only a complete idiot or a delusional ideologue would argue that is not an endorsement of slavery.
As for moral equivalency, it is a term used (much as "grey area") by those needing an excuse to satisfy a cognitive dissonance that comes from making a choice that is personally beneficial but morally reprehensible.
Sort of like Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son to God, to justify God's jealously that Abraham loved his son more than God?

Yeah, moral relativism. You enjoy your "grey" area.
 
Last edited:

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Could we please stop having threads that have titles which start with "The True -", "The Truth About -" etc etc? These titles portray the OP as arrogant, as if it's the only way things can be perceived and *clearly* anyone who disagrees with the OP is patently wrong. While it's possible that's not the intention, it's certainly the way it comes across.
It's a debate. Having an opinion of what the "truth" is is the entire point.

Ironically, in the first paragraph of said argument I call "truth" subjective. Did you miss the irony of that or did you not bother reading a single word I wrote, aside from the title? Do you simply wander into threads randomly criticising a misplaced word here or there or do you have an intelligent contribution to make? I await your well thoughtout answer.
 

peas_and_corn

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
16
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It's a debate. Having an opinion of what the "truth" is is the entire point.

Ironically, in the first paragraph of said argument I call "truth" subjective. Did you miss the irony of that or did you not bother reading a single word I wrote, aside from the title? Do you simply wander into threads randomly criticising a misplaced word here or there or do you have an intelligent contribution to make? I await your well thoughtout answer.

That's really my point, though. If you believe that thruth is subjective, then why such a bold thread title?

Additionally, from your first paragraph-

Christian's often criticize intellectuals of "moral relativism," which is to say that good and evil are subjective constructs. This idea is derived from the fact that the truth itself is subjective, because different people experience life differently. What is good for some is bad for others and vice versa.

I took it as merely a description of what moral relativism is. I also noted the beginning of your next paragraph-

But in truth, the dogma of Christian beliefs stem from a morality that comes from whatever people who write scripture "say" God thinks, even if different views of God's morality contradict each other or conflict with your average Christian's morality. The Bible doesn't say that slavery or rape are wrong. In fact, the Bible encourages both. Yet that same Bible is used as a moral compass by people who believe rape is immoral. To a Christian, morality is relative to what scripture says God thinks.

The beginning of your paragraph at the very least implies that this is the only way things can be interpreted. You claim that you are a relativist, and then in the next paragraph go on to claim what the "truth" is? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
That's really my point, though. If you believe that thruth is subjective, then why such a bold thread title?
I was hoping to debate the content of my argument, not the style in which I made it. Frankly, a good debater uses challenging language. Do you really need that explained to you? I'm beginning to think you don't have anything serious to say.
The beginning of your paragraph at the very least implies that this is the only way things can be interpreted. You claim that you are a relativist, and then in the next paragraph go on to claim what the "truth" is? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
At what point did I ever say I was a Moral Relativist? I am making Argument A and I expect to debate those who decide to take up Argument B. It's really not any more complex than that. Since I never claimed to be a moral relativist, I'm not contradicting myself. But even in relativity, we need to be able to use the word "fact" to describe something that cannot be disproved. It cannot be disproved that the Bible contains pro-rape and pro-slavery passages.

In the future I would appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my beliefs or my personal thoughts, with which you are not privy and of which you have no knowledge. By starting a paragraph with the phrase "In truth..." I made the stance of my argument clear--it's a simply debate technique.

Since then I've provided data-points for my argument with passages from the Bible [Page 1]; and since my main point was that the Bible contains said passages (which it does, relative truth or no) I can use words like "fact" and "truth" when describing those passages and their content.

But by your argument, which is thin at best, I should never use the words "fact" or "truth" in any thread which also contains concepts such as Moral Relativism or subjective perspectives. As I said, I would prefer to debate the content of my argument, not the style with which I present it.

Do you have a counter-argument to anything I've said? So far, I haven't heard one.

Thanks.

:peace
 
Last edited:

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Hassan-i Sabbah, but you probably know it from Assasins Creed. Now where's my cookie?

How about an Apple instead ;)

858190-assassinscreed_al_mualim_holding_the_piece_of_eden_large.png
 

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
At least I take the Bible at face value. You seem to interpret it to mean whatever you want.

It literally says, "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." (young girls?)

And this supports your thesis that the Bible supports rape how??

Deuteronomy 20:14

"But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Same question.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT (If you rape a virgin, you have to marry her LOL)

"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

What version of the Bible is that? The NKJ version is as such:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

But you conveniently left out 25-27 which says that the man that forces a woman to lie with him will surely die. Of course, there is more than one type of death. There is death of the body and death of the sole. When God talks about someone dieing as punishment, he generally is speaking of their sole. I.e. hell.

2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB (God will force your wife to be raped)

"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Uh, that doesn't say they are unwilling. That just says that they'll have sex with their neighbor.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB (In war, take wives of your captives and rape them)

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.... After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her." (relations means rape, buddy)

I don't see how you get rape out of that. It talks about taking the woman as a wife after an appropriate grieving period.

Maybe instead of "trying" to insult me, you should read the Bible and get a better grasp of it's content? Think about it.

Way to stick your foot in your mouth.

You seem to have an implication problem. You imply lots of off the wall meanings to very clearly written statements. I never insulted you and you have yet to show a deeper understanding of the Bible.

The passage literally says, "You may buy slaves." Only a complete idiot or a delusional ideologue would argue that is not an endorsement of slavery.

You don't understand what slavery was in that time. Someone has put together a very well written and researched piece on what slavery was in the time that the Bible was written on Wiki:

Slavery was customary in ancient times, and some forms are condoned by the Torah[6]. In the Bible, Hebrews are forbidden to kill slaves[7], force a slave to work on the Sabbath[8], return an escaped slave[9], or to slander a slave[10]. It is common for a person to voluntarily sell oneself into slavery for a fixed period of time either to pay off debts or to get food and shelter.[11] It was seen as legitimate to enslave captives obtained through warfare[12], but not through kidnapping[13][14] for the purpose of enslaving them. Children could also be sold into debt bondage[15], which was sometimes ordered by a court of law[16][17][18].

Christianity and slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure sounds like employment to me.

Sort of like Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son to God, to justify God's jealously that Abraham loved his son more than God?

And has that not changed with the New Testament? You should understand that the sacrifice of Jesus ended the days of all sacrifices. His blood was spilled to mark the growth of humanity. In the early years, our ability to demonstrate our loyalty to God was limited to physical demonstrations. As we, as a race, have developed our emotions and mental acuity so has God adjusted his rules. It is like rising a child. As they grow your expectations and discipline change to suit their abilities, so has God changed his rules and punishment.

Yeah, moral relativism. You enjoy your "grey" area.

No, I don't have any relativism or grey areas.
 
Last edited:

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
And this supports your thesis that the Bible supports rape how??

It supports rape by providing a moral justification for it ("God says it's okay if I do it to my enemy's wife or daughter.")

This isn't hard for most of us to figure out.

What version of the Bible is that? The NKJ version is as such:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

But you conveniently left out 25-27 which says that the man that forces a woman to lie with him will surely die. Of course, there is more than one type of death. There is death of the body and death of the sole. When God talks about someone dieing as punishment, he generally is speaking of their sole. I.e. hell.

Let me explain slowly. Seize a virgin and lie with her (i.e., rape her) and you will be forced to marry her without an out clause. Seize someone's WIFE, and you will be killed (mainly for theft of his property).

See, in Biblical terms, women were property. These were the consequences for devaluing another man's property.

Uh, that doesn't say they are unwilling. That just says that they'll have sex with their neighbor.

No. It states that he will have sex with them, at will. Whether they want it or not, is the implication. Again, women are property. You've taken his property to do with as you wish. Women had zero rights to own themselves per Biblical law. Rape was evil, not because you'd violated a woman, but because you'd stolen and/or devalued another man's property.

I don't see how you get rape out of that. It talks about taking the woman as a wife after an appropriate grieving period.

It's about taking them, willing or unwilling, and using them as your property. Do you think that a month would be an appropriate grieving period for most women who'd seen their neighbors/husbands/children/parents slaughtered in front of them by these holy warriors?
 

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It supports rape by providing a moral justification for it ("God says it's okay if I do it to my enemy's wife or daughter.")

This isn't hard for most of us to figure out.

And this applies to Christians how? I mean lets face it we #1 do not take prisoners of war from an enemy, we also are not bound by old testament law.

Let me explain slowly. Seize a virgin and lie with her (i.e., rape her) and you will be forced to marry her without an out clause. Seize someone's WIFE, and you will be killed (mainly for theft of his property).

It may or may not be rape depending on the situation. Either way it is not condoning it.

See, in Biblical terms, women were property. These were the consequences for devaluing another man's property.

It is important to note the customs of the time, as what is considered sexist today,
might then have been normal, and in some cases progressive for the time.

No. It states that he will have sex with them, at will. Whether they want it or not, is the implication. Again, women are property. You've taken his property to do with as you wish. Women had zero rights to own themselves per Biblical law. Rape was evil, not because you'd violated a woman, but because you'd stolen and/or devalued another man's property.

Of course women in ancient Israel got trusted much better than most other ancient society's. Funny how people leave that out.

It's about taking them, willing or unwilling, and using them as your property. Do you think that a month would be an appropriate grieving period for most women who'd seen their neighbors/husbands/children/parents slaughtered in front of them by these holy warriors?

Would not matter to us as again it does not apply outside of history.
 

Catz Part Deux

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
28,721
Reaction score
6,738
Location
Redneck Riviera
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
And this applies to Christians how? I mean lets face it we #1 do not take prisoners of war from an enemy, we also are not bound by old testament law.

You're attempting to shift the playing field to something more to your liking. The original post was that the BIBLE contains support for rape and slavery. The proof has been delivered.

Yahweh allowed and/or condoned such practices, and in some cases, ordered them.

I'm pretty sure that you do want to wash your hands of the unsavory historical elements of the Bible. But aren't you the one that repeatedly reminds us that Jesus came to fulfill the law of God? Aren't you someone who repeatedly uses Levitical law (in addition to other Biblical sources) to defend the interpretation of homosexuality as sin?

Yes, yes you are.

It may or may not be rape depending on the situation. Either way it is not condoning it.

Oh really. Are we now redefining condoning? When Biblical law and/or prophets speak, and state that God has told them that the Israelites are allowed to take unwilling captives as wives/property, that is in fact condoning rape and slavery.

It is important to note the customs of the time, as what is considered sexist today,
might then have been normal, and in some cases progressive for the time.

Oh. So rape and slavery are progressive?

Of course women in ancient Israel got trusted much better than most other ancient society's. Funny how people leave that out.

Evidence? Women in Israel and most of the middle east were treated like property. The Israelis were not significantly more humane to their women.

Would not matter to us as again it does not apply outside of history.

It shows us the character of the deity that you worship. In essence, the god you revere is bloodthirsty, tribalistic, warlike, and saw women as property to be seized. Did God's character change from the Old Testament to the New Testament?
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're attempting to shift the playing field to something more to your liking. The original post was that the BIBLE contains support for rape and slavery. The proof has been delivered.

Yahweh allowed and/or condoned such practices, and in some cases, ordered them.

I'm pretty sure that you do want to wash your hands of the unsavory historical elements of the Bible. But aren't you the one that repeatedly reminds us that Jesus came to fulfill the law of God? Aren't you someone who repeatedly uses Levitical law (in addition to other Biblical sources) to defend the interpretation of homosexuality as sin?

Yes, yes you are.

No, no I am not. Please point out where I have used the Mosaic law for other than an historical reference? I have literally posted lots of times it does not apply to modern Christians outside of historical precedence.

It is also well known trying to give modern sensibility's to the ancient law is folly as the people and times had a different set of circumstance. In the time of Paul and Jesus everything changed and is much closer to us.

Oh really. Are we now redefining condoning? When Biblical law and/or prophets speak, and state that God has told them that the Israelites are allowed to take unwilling captives as wives/property, that is in fact condoning rape and slavery.

You are trying to take war and make it sensible. War is not and never will be. You are also trying to take modern sensibility and apply it to the law for the Israelites, no one else.

So again to Christians, it is really irrelevant out outside of historical reference.

Oh. So rape and slavery are progressive?

Yea, thats exactly what I said. :doh

Evidence? Women in Israel and most of the middle east were treated like property. The Israelis were not significantly more humane to their women.

I apologies, I meant during the time of Jesus and Paul etc, not the old law.

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Messiah also loved the assembly, and gave himself for it

It shows us the character of the deity that you worship. In essence, the god you revere is bloodthirsty, tribalistic, warlike, and saw women as property to be seized. Did God's character change from the Old Testament to the New Testament?

Not really. It shows what Ancient Israel needed to remain a viable society and not be perverted by immoral and pagan society's around them.

God has not changed, we have.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New King James Version)
28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days."
Consensual sex isn't called "seizing her and lying with her."

"Seize" means to capture or take hold. Again, taking a slave against her will and then taking her to your bed is not consensual sex. But nice try. The Basic English version or God's word explicitly translate it to mean unconscionably sex. Look it up yourself, the rest of the version simply imply that it's rape:

Deuteronomy 22:28
Uh, that doesn't say they are unwilling. That just says that they'll have sex with their neighbor.
When I "give your wife" to someone else for sex, does it sound like she has a choice? No.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?
I don't see how you get rape out of that. It talks about taking the woman as a wife after an appropriate grieving period.
Right. After you kill a young girls parents and force her into marriage with intercourse--to you it's not rape, because she's your "war-wife." You really have no idea what your talking about. When you force a slave into marriage, after killing her family, there is no way sex with her will be consensual. At least not at first.

Yes, a wive may grow to love her rapist, but not at first. Not after three months.
You seem to have an implication problem. You imply lots of off the wall meanings to very clearly written statements. I never insulted you and you have yet to show a deeper understanding of the Bible.
You clearly lack a basic, literal, understanding of the Bible. Read it again.
You don't understand what slavery was in that time.
Not good enough. Slavery is wrong, but the Bible supports slavery.

If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is an All-Knowing being, then God would have made it clear that slavery was wrong and forcing women and children (young girls) to get married and forcing them to have sex with their husbands is morally wrong. Rape is still rape, even if the two people are married.

You want to compare "slavery" to "employment?" You can quit a job, smarty-pants.
And has that not changed with the New Testament?
No it didn't. Christ healed slaves and slave owners, but never said that slavery was wrong or should be condemned. Christ condemned the act of stoning a women to death for adultery, but never once said "rape is wrong" or "slavery is wrong."

Guess again.
No, I don't have any relativism or grey areas.
I have no intention of judging you or your private beliefs. But Christianity has more grey area and moral ambiguity than I can list in this thread along. You can make all the weak arguments you want about "war-wives" not being rape victims--as if carrying women off the battle-field to be make 'wives' by intercourse isn't rape--but you are really just fooling yourself.

No one else is fooled. God is supposed to be your ultimate moral guide, but can't tell you that kidnapping women for sex or slavery is morally wrong? Do you think slavery is a moral grey area like the Bible?

Thanks :peace
 
Last edited:

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
And this applies to Christians how? I mean lets face it we #1 do not take prisoners of war from an enemy, we also are not bound by old testament law.
Ever hear of the Crusades? Ok, well let that slide.

Actually, Christ ordered his flock to follow the commandments of the Old Testament and to obey the Law and scripture. Since Christ based his ministry on the Old Testament (and was Jewish) we can surmise that Christian's still operate under Old Testament as well as the New. Besides, it's IN YOUR BIBLE.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - J. Christ.

The Law of the prophets was Moses' Law and the Old Testament.
It may or may not be rape depending on the situation. Either way it is not condoning it.
The Bible condones taking "sex-slaves," which people with morals consider rape.

All this thread is doing is proving that Christian's have moral grey areas when it comes to the Bible. On the topic of slavery and rape two or three Christians have defended the Bibles promotion of such crimes. Why would Christians with morals defend slavery and forced-sex, if they thought those things were immoral?
It is important to note the customs of the time, as what is considered sexist today,
might then have been normal, and in some cases progressive for the time.
More moral grey area from a Christian. Why am I not surprised?
Would not matter to us as again it does not apply outside of history.
Because:

A. It's the supposed word and will of God.
B. Because it applies to Christians, their teachings and beliefs.
C. Because it's in your "Good Book."

The Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Any questions? :peace
 
Last edited:

ksu_aviator

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
6,969
Reaction score
2,592
Location
Fort Worth Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Consensual sex isn't called "seizing her and lying with her."

"Seize" means to capture or take hold. Again, taking a slave against her will and then taking her to your bed is not consensual sex. But nice try. The Basic English version or God's word explicitly translate it to mean unconscionably sex. Look it up yourself, the rest of the version simply imply that it's rape:

Deuteronomy 22:28

When I "give your wife" to someone else for sex, does it sound like she has a choice? No.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension?

Right. After you kill a young girls parents and force her into marriage with intercourse--to you it's not rape, because she's your "war-wife." You really have no idea what your talking about. When you force a slave into marriage, after killing her family, there is no way sex with her will be consensual. At least not at first.

Yes, a wive may grow to love her rapist, but not at first. Not after three months.

You clearly lack a basic, literal, understanding of the Bible. Read it again.

No, you use small passage sets to create larger meanings. I pointed it out above, you conveniently left out passages before and after that completely changed the meaning so that you could create a demonization of a religion for your own personal political gain. You think you've done something so great, but you just set up a very weak straw-man argument that was knocked down and now you lash out with personal attacks because you've lost the battle in the intellectual field.

Not good enough. Slavery is wrong, but the Bible supports slavery.

If the Bible is the Word of God, and God is an All-Knowing being, then God would have made it clear that slavery was wrong and forcing women and children (young girls) to get married and forcing them to have sex with their husbands is morally wrong. Rape is still rape, even if the two people are married.

You want to compare "slavery" to "employment?" You can quit a job, smarty-pants.

And this is why you are called a troll. You blindly ignored evidence of the transformation of the term slavery from centuries ago to today. Slavery = employment in the time of the Bible. Plain and simple. What do you call it when someone does tasks for another for payment? Today it is employment...back then it was slavery.

No it didn't. Christ healed slaves and slave owners, but never said that slavery was wrong or should be condemned. Christ condemned the act of stoning a women to death for adultery, but never once said "rape is wrong" or "slavery is wrong."

Guess again.

Nice try, but I wasn't talking about slaves, I was talking about the changing methods of God.



I have no intention of judging you or your private beliefs. But Christianity has more grey area and moral ambiguity than I can list in this thread along. You can make all the weak arguments you want about "war-wives" not being rape victims--as if carrying women off the battle-field to be make 'wives' by intercourse isn't rape--but you are really just fooling yourself.

Well that's just a flat out lie. You absolutely intend to judge me and all other Christians...that was the intent of this thread.

No one else is fooled. God is supposed to be your ultimate moral guide, but can't tell you that kidnapping women for sex or slavery is morally wrong? Do you think slavery is a moral grey area like the Bible?

Thanks :peace

I'm just going to give you the lazy and easy answer....the Ten Commandments. Two commandments apply to rape, don't commit adultery and don't covet thy neighbors wife. You said the Bible doesn't condemn rape, well rape is either adultery, coveting they neighbors wife or both.
 
Last edited:

Black Dog

King Of The Dog Pound
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Messages
36,230
Reaction score
8,358
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ever hear of the Crusades? Ok, well let that slide.

Actually, Christ ordered his flock to follow the commandments of the Old Testament and to obey the Law and scripture. Since Christ based his ministry on the Old Testament (and was Jewish) we can surmise that Christian's still operate under Old Testament as well as the New. Besides, it's IN YOUR BIBLE.

:doh

Christ died on the cross fulfilling the law. Even for Jews the destruction of the temple ended the sacrificial laws.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - J. Christ.

The Law of the prophets was Moses' Law and the Old Testament.

The Bible condones taking "sex-slaves," which people with morals consider rape.

Yes it does in the case of prisoners of war in the Old Testament, which has no bearing on Christians at all. That was the old covenant between God and his chosen people. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy's and ended the Mosaic laws for all men, not just the Jews.

Even they Jews no longer follow aspects of the law since the destruction of the Temple.

All this thread is doing is proving that Christian's have moral grey areas when it comes to the Bible. On the topic of slavery and rape two or three Christians have defended the Bibles promotion of such crimes. Why would Christians with morals defend slavery and forced-sex, if they thought those things were immoral?

Actually all this proves is you have not really read the Bible or understand the relationship between the Old and New Testament.

More moral grey area from a Christian. Why am I not surprised?

Because:

A. It's the supposed word and will of God.
B. Because it applies to Christians, their teachings and beliefs.
C. Because it's in your "Good Book."

The Christian Bible is the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Any questions? :peace

No not really. Your lack of understanding biblical concepts is noted, and answers most if any questions we would have for you.
 
Last edited:

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Christ died on the cross fulfilling the law. Even for Jews the destruction of the temple ended the sacrificial laws.
You sound like a Lawyer looking for a legal loophole to ignore scripture.

Christ said, in his own words, to keep the "Law" of the prophets and the Commandments--he also added one final commandment. Whatever you might interpret from Christs death, nothing will change what he actually said.

Try again. Fail again.
Yes it does in the case of prisoners of war in the Old Testament, which has no bearing on Christians at all. That was the old covenant between God and his chosen people. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy's and ended the Mosaic laws for all men, not just the Jews.
That statement contradicts Christs own words. God's words still apply.

But even if what you say is true, which I find laughable, you are saying that God supported slavery and rape, but then when Christ was made, God decided that maybe slavery and rape were wrong? You think God changed his mind?

If so, why didn't Christ make a point about saying that slavery was wrong? Oh, yeah, he never did so your entire point is invalid. This is no surprise to me.
Even they Jews no longer follow aspects of the law since the destruction of the Temple.
The Temple was destroyed long before Christ was born. But on that I will agree with you.
Actually all this proves is you have not really read the Bible or understand the relationship between the Old and New Testament.
Actually, all of this proves that Christian's don't understand the Bible.
No not really. Your lack of understanding biblical concepts is noted, and answers most if any questions we would have for you.
Keep telling yourself that.
 

joe six-pack

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
384
Location
Six-Pakistan
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
No, you use small passage sets to create larger meanings.
Actually, I'm using the entire Bible, you seem to be obsessed with only the New Testament.
I pointed it out above, you conveniently left out passages before and after that completely changed the meaning so that you could create a demonization of a religion for your own personal political gain.
You asked for it. I'll post the entire section and point out where you are wrong.

Deuteronomy 22 deals with how to resolve certain offensive sex acts.
Deuteronomy 22 said:

23 If a young virgin has given her word to be married to a man
, and another man meeting her in the town, has connection with her; 24 Then you are to take the two of them to the doorway of the town, and have them stoned to death; the young virgin, because she gave no cry for help, though it was in the town, and the man, because he has put shame on his neighbour's wife: so you are to put away evil from among you.
If a woman is to be married, but is raped, she and the rapist must be killed: "because she gave no cry for help."
Deuteronomy 22 said:
25 But if the man, meeting such a virgin [to be married] in the open country, takes her by force, then only the man is to be put to death; 26 Nothing is to be done to the virgin, because there is no cause of death in her: it is the same as if a man made an attack on his neighbour and put him to death: 27 For he came across her in the open country, and there was no one to come to the help of the virgin in answer to her cry.
If a man rapes a "woman to be married," and the rape is far away from people, then only the man should be killed. But...
Deuteronomy 22]
28 If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it; 29 Then the man will have to give the virgin's father fifty shekels of silver and make her his wife, because he has put shame on her; he may never put her away all his life.
If a man rapes a woman or girl not promised to be married, he must marry her.

Therefore, the punishment for adultery is more severe than the punishment for rape.
You think you've done something so great, but you just set up a very weak straw-man argument that was knocked down and now you lash out with personal attacks because you've lost the battle in the intellectual field.
Actually, what I have done is small. All I have done is prove I know more about the Bible than you do. This was proven when you tried to argue that the Bible doesn't condone slavery, which it does. This was proven again when you tried to argue the Bible doesn't condone rape, which it does "if" the women was not promised to be married, and the man who rapes her also marries her.

See? You are wrong, but all I've done is waste time convincing you of what most people already know. For you, this was an education, but for me it was a waste of time. So, no, I don't think what I have done is very great.
And this is why you are called a troll. You blindly ignored evidence
That's the second time you have resorted to name calling.

You ignored the evidence that the Bible promotes slavery, which is against the slaves will and therefore not "employment." An employee has a choice a slave does not. Then you ignored evidence that, in certain conditions, a rapists acts are condoned. And all you can do is call me names.

How pathetic.
Nice try, but I wasn't talking about slaves, I was talking about the changing methods of God.
God doesn't change. Read the Bible, it says so.

Malachi 3:6 “I the LORD do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed."
Well that's just a flat out lie. You absolutely intend to judge me and all other Christians...that was the intent of this thread.
You think too much of yourself. I could care less about you, I'm talking about the dogma and theology of Christianity--you are the one making this personal. Do you get emotional much? What kind of a narcissist would say something like that?
I'm just going to give you the lazy and easy answer....
That's all you ever give and you are often wrong. The Ten Commandment don't say anything about rape.

Adultery is "any" sex outside of marriage, willingness is not a factor. "Coveting" someones wife is to lust after her. But by your argument, all rape not involving married people is 100% acceptable. By the way, about moral relativism. The fact that you defended "slavery" as a good life-style and form of "employment" proves my entire point.

You really do have a flexible morality if you can argue that slavery isn't morally wrong 100% of the time. Thanks. Thank you for proving my point.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom