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

You're talking about two very different things here. If she were seduced, I would want the seducer to support her.

Except you haven't shown any relativity. This was intended for OT Israel, did this commandment change and I missed it? Fail.

 

I didn't make anything up. In the bolded above in your post, "She would have wanted..""

Now, I take by "she" you mean the women of the time...or is all this blather and blubbering about ONE specific woman?

If it means women of the time then your phrase, "she would have wanted", indicates that YOU know what all women think and/or feel.

You can't .

 

If it didn't change is it still in force for the "theocracy"?
If it is only for OT Israel, then it is relative to the time and not the beliefs of an unchanging omniscient god.
More evidence that it was written by people to serve their own needs.

 

Clearly you did not understand much of what the founding fathers were saying or the idea of moral obligation in relationship to the golden rule.

In simple terms, because you seem to have trouble with things that are slightly complex, laws are not to be made for religious reasons

Laws need to be supported by logic and not "revelations from God".

Anyone can stand on a soapbox and cry out " No No No, your wrong" .


If you think I have said something that is wrong then state what you think is wrong and why you think so.

I did not say it did and it does not matter one way or the other to the topic.

The point is that what some religious text, (Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Talmud) says God thinks about alcohol is not justification for making a law.

Perhaps when you graduate from grade 10 you will be able to understand the fact that when something is made law the State then can enforce that law through force and violence if necessary.

When you have achieved this mental capacity then come back for a discussion.

 

Oh gee, maybe he made the mistake of thinking the OP was the SUBJECT....how was he to know that somewhere a zillion pages back the writer of the OP said, oops! Nevermind! I got it bassackwards!

 

All of your copy and paste still does not address ANY of my questions. Are you incapable of doing so?

Again:

Stop copying and pasting irrelevant crap and just answer the questions, please.

 

Your questions were answered, maybe you don't like the answers or something.

- - - Updated - - -

So why do you guys insist a women would never want to marry her attacker, when there is at least one instance of a woman wanting to do so? You know what all women think or feel?

 

There is no more theocracy.

Nonsense, why would one size fits all, when it comes to completely different situations? The moral code, as expressed in the Ten Commandents for example, was in effect then and it is in effect now. By confusing other OT Jewish commands meant for them only you only make youself look silly.

The Bible was written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

I NEVER insisted that woman wouldn't want to marry her attacker.

YOU claim that one woman did(still with no proof) and YOU are using that ONE woman to make a point you can't possibly make because all women do NOT think or feel the same way...

And NO, I have NEVER said I know what all women think, I have pointed out that YOU can't...but you just can't accept that women are NOT cattle, they do not all feel or think the same way that ONE woman in your phoney example does.

 

Suggesting that a woman, forced to choose the lesser of two evils, actually wants one of those things is ridiculous. If I hold a gun to your head and make you give me your money or I'll shoot you, do you want to give me your money? Please.

 

If god is the same now, then and always, how could justice change with era given identical circumstances? A great argument for moral relativism.
Your half right. The bible wa s written by men.

 

No, they really weren't. You did not specifically address ANYthing I said.

 

I agree with FoxHastings in post #686, a could choose to take the lessor of several evils, and in fact there is an instance in the OT where it happened, which destroys your case.

- - - Updated - - -

Where did God's moral law change?

 

You don't seem to understand what my "case" is, so excuse me if I don't take your declaration of its destruction seriously. Do you acknowledge that choosing the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as wanting the one that is chosen?

 

What exactly do you agree with me on in post 686 above ???????????

 

No, I don't. Why can't you want the lesser of two evils? We do that at bad restaurants.

 

I didn't say you can't want one of them, I said being forced to choose is not the same as wanting. You're citing an example of a woman forced into choosing to be with her attacker (instead of starving or prostitution) as a sign that she wanted to be with him. That's absurd. Unless you think that a robber forcing you, at gunpoint, to give him your money means you want to give it to him. In that case, it's insane.

 

because that's what you christians believe! you spend enormous amounts of time telling us that god's laws are universal and unchanging and eternal. your god is the poster child for 'one size fits all'.

ergo TBB is absolutely correct in saying this rape nonsense is a very good pointer to the bible's fictional status. and I note you concur when you say 'the bible was written by men, inspired by the holy spirit'. holy spirit being just another name for the muse.

 

the absurdity knows no bounds.

I hate seeing good people consumed by such disturbing shiite.