The Atheist 'Pay 50 Shekels for a Rape, Get A Rape' Myth

Pathetic personal insults yet again from someone incapable of debate. Do you really think you help your cause by this behavior?

 

1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Here's the definition that defines you.
And me.

Still avoiding that post about the bible as cultural relativism, I see.

 

Everyone is a cultural / moral relativist, but the head up the wrong place people can never ever bring themselves to admit it.

 

He sure is going out of his way to avoid this, isn't he?

 

An honourable person would find no need to do that.

 

Is it more noble to run from a debate?

 

Who's doing that, I say as I type the 631st post on this thread. I suspect you believe because someone comes to differing conclusions, they're 'running from a debate'. Whatever.

 

I have no idea what you mean by that. Laws such as these intended for the OT theocracy of Israel have no relevance for Christians today. This might unconfuse you:

http://carm.org/god-does-not-change-why-do-his-moral-laws-change

 

No.
Someone too flummoxed to respond to a post directed to him is the one running.
That would be you.
What's funny is we aren't coming to differing conclusions.
We both find the bible to be addressing the specific needs of a given culture, and not reflecting the actual realities of what god would really like.

 

Either that or I never saw whatever it is you're talking about. What to tell me? It's a full-time job responding to the atheists here, grossly overrepresented as they are compared to normal America.

FYI, Don't ever assume I'm 'flummoxed' if I don't reply, PM me if it's that important to you. I certainly don't assume something like that when I don't get a response.

 

You are alerted of every post directed to you. Don't even pretend the "I didn't see it" ruse.
I continue to assert you're flummoxed, because now that you are aware of the post you still refuse to address it.
Continued avoidance is not an argument.
Oh, and I'm not an atheist.

 

That doesn't mean I read all those alerts, I get about 50 e-mails a day. Last week I was in Phoenix, next week will be in Chicago, as such times your posts are waaaay down my priority list. As I said before, if you want an answer to a question I've missed, PM me.

WHAT is your question? If you won't tell me, get someone else to play your games. Avoiding said question isn't an argument either.

 

All posts directed to you are in your box. It was in this thread. If you weren't avoiding it you would have read it already.
Basically it is wondering why you have spent the entire thread making the atheists case that the bible is merely a cultural relic and not the actual words of god. Your only argument for this "solution" to rape by god is it is the only one that would be acceptable culturally. Not that it was what god really wanted, but it was what the culture could handle. You admit that we wouldn't find this solution righteous today, so it is a cultural artifact. Since god is the same now, then and always, what is actually righteous wouldn't change. Why did god pull his punches?
You have made the case that the bible is simply the product of the culture, and you have made it very well.

 

Here's the original.
Not that far back.

 

And like Kaiser Sozay........HE'S GONE!

 

First of all, you do realize it wasn't really a rape, correct? Secondly, how is that obscure passage some kind of eternal moral law intended for all mankind? Did you even read my post #633? There were laws intended solely for the OT theocracy of Israel, and not considered binding even for surrounding contemporary gentile nations of Israel's, let alone for Christians today. This is a constant error from atheists, in their ignorance or distortion of this they pretend they have some kind of 'gotcha' moment. It is bizarre. And this marriage decision wasn't just made for women back then, Samson's parents were involved in his marriage. Things were a bit different then as compared to today's enlighted women who park their children in daytime orphanages known as day care and kill their children in the womb. That may be off topic, but IMHO this generation has no business pointing fingers at others.

So tell me exactly which eternal moral law from the OP was later changed?

If that's your best case for the 'fabrication of scripture' you really do have a weak hand.

 

The reason why folks care, and this includes religious people and non religious people, is that there are groups of religious people who are hell bent on forcing their religious beliefs on others.

Their core rational for doing this is "God says so".

For this reason it is important to point that such folks have no clue what God says or thinks.

 

So shouldn't you be on Muslim forums straightening them out? What Christian is forcing you to do anything? For forcing their beliefs on others, nothing beats the former atheistic Communist regimes. I just finished Alexander Solzhenitzyn's The First Circle, a novel based on real-life events where people were sentenced to 15 and 25 year prison terms (with another 5 'on the horns', i.e. under strict probation) under horrendous conditions for innocent coversations between two people that were heard by the wrong person. Solzhenitzyn was imprisoned after censors read a reference by him to "the man in the mustache", Stalin. So again, what Christian is threatening you with such treatment, and by your reasoning shouldn't I oppose atheists because of this danger?

Your opinion is noted.

 

Yes, it was rape. Your excuses on this have been absurd.
It wasn't for the theocracy. It was for the Hebrew people.
I'm still not an atheist, so those jabs are missing.
To call this a "marriage decision" is an abomination. It is a transfer of ownership from the father to the rapist. Nothing more. The father has lost value of his property, he is compensated and the asset is transferred. Women were chattel. God's edict here supports the patriachal society.
Whether you think this is binding or not on the contemporary Christian, it is what is suggested that god found just in scripture. I don't know anyone, not even you, that would consider that justice today. If god never changes, and we agree this is not justice, why didn't god hold them accountable to what is right?
Your answer through this entire thread is because that is what the culture could handle.
So god isn't about what is right, by your estimation, he is about what is efficacious. He doesn't hold people accountable to righteousness, but rather just to the closest they can handle. If god is always the same, then this isn't god's word.
So what you are describing is a ruling that shows that the bible isn't the word of god, but the word of men in service to a cultural need, and you have stated that repeatedly over 600+ posts.

 

Muslims are even worse than the fundamentalist Christians.

I am neither atheist or communist. I am a fiscal conservative who loves the constitution and deeply cherishes individual rights and freedoms.

Abortion, Pornography, Prostitution, Alcohol ... just to name a few.

When you make a law this gives the state the right to force your beliefs on others through coercion, fine, violence, imprisonment or even death.

This is how the religious right forces their religious beliefs on others.

 

ALL laws are an imposition somebody's world view. Christians have just as much right to be involved in public policy questions as anyone. The democratic process is hardley 'forcing' you to do something. You may have to travel to NV for your hookers, I'm afraid.

 

You're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about. See http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm This thread should have been over when this was first posted.

Who at that time were living under a theocracy.

What are you?

And neither you or anyone else here came up with a better answer, and we have an instance of a rape victim who wanted to marry her attacker, which kind of proves my point. And since it wasn't really about rape, your point is moot.

Of course not, you're comparing two completely different societies. But it wasn't rape.

You haven't answered my question, what eternal moral law was changed?

 

Of course Christians have the right to be involved in public policy. That was not the point.

The point is that is that under our constitution laws in this country are to be made on the basis of rational thought and not religious belief.

The point is that if you want to make a law you should have a valid reason. The question in a referendum for example is not "do you agree that Alcohol should be legal" or "Does God think Alcohol should be legal"

The question in a referendum is : Do you have sufficient justification to force other people in the society to abstain from Alcohol.

Valid reasons do not include:

"I don't like it" then don't drink
"God does not like it" you have no clue what God wants.. this is only a belief that can not be proved.

Almost all civilized legal systems are based on the rule of law. One of the key components (and you should recognize this)
is the Golden Rule "do unto others as you would have them do to you "

If you do not want others forcing their beliefs on you through force of law then you should not be forcing your beliefs on others through force of law.

That and the founders were clear that religious belief was not to be force on people by the state.

 

Did you read your citation?
He says it is talking about how that society should cope with a RAPE! He use that word. Were you hoping no one would read it?
Where did you get the idea that the victim WANTED to marry her attacker? Mod Edit ~ Rule 2/Stop the name calling.
Once again you state that justice is relative to a given society. You make my point again, and you don't even realize it.
You completely ignore the entire last paragraph of my post, because you have no answers. Edited
Asking a question to avoid being mauled by your own words won't cut it.

 

So what is your complaint? If we have the right to prevail, then sometimes our views will prevail.

Cite please. The constitution only says Congress (as opposed to states, who at the time had established churches) shall make no law establishing a religion, as in England. There is no freedom FROM religion.

What motivates someone to vote a certain way in a the privacy of a voting booth is none of your business. Was it also a bad thing that Dr. ML King wanted to change our laws based on his religious beliefs? The abolitionists and those opposed to the slave trade? Does it bother you when some Christians support gay rights, for instance, due to their beliefs?

Funny how most of them are found in the historically Christian West.

I have beliefs I don't agree with forced on my all the time. Living under the pathetic Obama administration being the most egregious example.

Nobody is forcing any religious beliefs on you.