T
- Status
J
JDaniel
Guest
TS:
That’s “ethics.” “Morals” refer to universal rules of behavior. “Ethics” refers to individual rules of behavior. Morals don’t change - unless an entire society votes to change one. But, a person can learn and grow in perfection of personal ethics.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
TS:
An earlier and more savage time. No court system. No codified laws. No police enforcement. Just primitive, savage people having to deal with primitive, savage people. “Rape,” then, was not a minor infraction. I think any raped woman today, if she had half a chance, would have killed her attacker.
How do you know the Scripture was talking about a “verbal infraction?”
I’m am not a pro-executioner, for a number of reasons. But, we’re not talking about today’s crimes and punishments. We’re talking about yesterday’s crimes and punishments. God didn’t prescribe the punishment. Men did. Certain punishments that wouldn’t be appropriate today, may have been necessary to act as deterrents in those days.
Savage people doing savage things. In Rwanda you didn’t even have to commit a crime. Being of a different black race got you hacked to death by machete.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
TS:
I wanted to know what was the same (identicality) between the prescribed punishments of the OT and the Quran.
God bless,
jd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m glad to hear it!
Okay, I’ll go with that for now.
Indeed.
I’m in agreement with you here. Though it may be obvious that I don’t assert any prescription for punishment as really coming from Yahweh. But that’s another topic.
If you think that execution by stoning and immolation was appropriate at some time for sexual infractions and disrespecting one’s parents I’ll simply acknowledge that you feel that way. Though it somehow doesn’t seem consistent with not being a pro-executioner. Also that sounds like it may be creeping into the territory of what I have heard referred to in this forum as either “relativism” or “subjective morality.”
J
JDaniel
Guest
TS:
I think execution by stoning is a horrible way to die. I will gladly guaranty you that whatever law that must be broken that will bring that punishment down on me, I will not break! But, you still think that “rape” is nothing more than a sexual infraction, and a minor one, I suppose? (I don’t think I want my daughters or my wife to live too close to you.) I can only imagine what it might have been like, 2,000 years ago, for women to live in a town where all men thought like that.
What about horse stealing? Is that a hanging offense? What would it take? What if a man deprived you of your feet? Or, your hands? Or, all four? What if a rapist raped your wife and gouged out her eyes so she wouldn’t be able to recognize him? What if a man raped and murdered your wife or daughter? Or both? (I’m trying to find a tipping point where you might say, “Enough’s enough, now I want you gone.” Do you have one?)
I know: it’s an exaggeration into silliness. But, I really would like to know if you are totally passivist.
God bless,
jd
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
“Nothing more” is a deflationary term that I’ve not used. Once you strike that from the sentence your question becomes entirely different. To the question of “is rape a sexual infraction” the you’ll find that western law, Mosaic law, and even secular humanism all agree that it is.
The minor infractions I had in mind for which death was also prescribe included picking up sticks on the Sabbath and speaking disrespectfully against one’s parents. I also don’t think that setting one on fire is an appropriate response to a priest daughter deciding to have sex while not married. But I’ve typed all of this before. If you need clarification let me know.
F
Faithdancer
Guest
Yes, and I submit that there is no such thing as a real atheist. The reason is that atheism ultimately depends, essentially, on “faith,” since God cannot be empirically disproved. However, since atheism is grounded in rejection of faith-based belief, atheism contains an unsolvable paradox. Therefore, those who believe that they are atheists are either in actuality agnostics (their logical position), or they are very confused.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Sounds like you are talking about what some identify as “strong atheist” (also called “positive atheist” or “hard atheist”). I too think that there are not very many instances of these types of atheist. Most that I encounter are either “agnostic atheist” and “apatheistic”.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Faithdancer:
I agree. I think I posted something similar to this a long time ago. If course, my syntax was not nearly as good as yours. Welcome aboard!
“Unsolvable paradox;” interesting. So, would “atheism” be more like a studious unwillingness to entertain even the slightest thought of God, opposed to rejection?
God bless,
jd
R
ReapReason
Guest
No. This is not proof of God.I was having this discussion with another person and they were having trouble seeing my point.
In the bible there are various verses forbidding fornication…but (according to atheists if there really is no God)…why does going against this law cause so much destruction in abortions, unadopted children and unwanted children.
Am I making sense?
A
AnthonySorensen
Guest
Did you think I expected an “atheist” to agree with me?
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Your hope of being an evangelist is what?Did you think I expected an “atheist” to agree with me?
A
AnthonySorensen
Guest
Great points.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Re: death by stoning for rape…RF:
Very funny!
Don’t forget, we all live under a modern rule of law (of course, that’s sometimes arguable) but our early fathers and mothers didn’t. They were their own “law.” Righteous retribution was the law of primitive peoples - otherwise criminals would do as they pleased, without regard to the rights of others; and, without regard to others’ personal sufferings.
In the absence of laws, courts and police, within reason (usually, but not always), men did what had to be done. A rapist could not be simply permitted. Death by stoning for rape was, I am sure, a rather effective deterrent. And, what was meant by “rebelliousness” against one’s parents was considerably more than the rebelliousness you probably exhibit toward your parents from time to time!
I’m not sure if that was his point, but, you are correct: provided we have fully understood the wrongness of an act. But, there are sometimes mitigations. For example, we know stealing is wrong. But, if I am hungry, practically starving to death, and I steal a little food from someone who has some, should I be stoned to death for it? The advantage of our court system is that a judge can often determine if the sentence the law prescribes is too harsh in certain circumstances. The judge doesn’t obliterate the wrongness of the act, just tempers down the punishment to fit the crime.
God bless,
jd
Please tell me where the man was in trouble for anything in the case of the woman brought before him who was accused of adultery?
R
ReachingFaith
Guest
Appreciate the responses from other posters, even though my basic question remains unanswered. I have to say, I’m discouraged by the attitude here.
An atheist or even a questioning person will not agree, it’s true. But one sure-fire way to make people doubt/dislike the faith is to a) refuse to answer the question, based on differing excuses
and,
b) respond with things that, while almost on point, are actually just one person’s opinion and not reasonable PROOF of anything.
You all must see it. I’m not the only one. If you don’t know, can’t answer…what does that say to me?
Ignorant though I may be, I am still trying to understand.
An atheist or even a questioning person will not agree, it’s true. But one sure-fire way to make people doubt/dislike the faith is to a) refuse to answer the question, based on differing excuses
and,
b) respond with things that, while almost on point, are actually just one person’s opinion and not reasonable PROOF of anything.
You all must see it. I’m not the only one. If you don’t know, can’t answer…what does that say to me?
Ignorant though I may be, I am still trying to understand.
A
ANewWorld
Guest
ReachingFaith, I don’t think anyone has brought this up yet, but to answer your original statement it is not proof because you are begging the question. This is a formal logical fallacy where you assume the premise as part of the proof. Your premise (i.e. what you are trying to prove) is God exists. You then point out what he wrote about fornication and since it actually does cause societal problems, this is proof he exists. You’re assuming the premise when you say God wrote the verses about fornication. There are a number of other implied assumptions that you do not address as well, but I hope this answers your question more directly that what you’ve seen so far.
R
ReachingFaith
Guest
I…what?
I’m not trying to prove any such thing! I have nothing to prove, in this position, the teachers do. I believe in God. What I want to know is why would God, who directly inspired the Bible, prescribe things that are wrong, no matter what age practiced them. It’s not that I don’t understand that “society” does things that are wrong, it’s that GOD inspired writings that told people to do these things.Am I really so unclear?
P
Portofino
Guest
Pardon me if your question is not “do morals ever change?” That’s what I take your question to be.
My own view of the matter is that no, morals never change. Christ’s teaching is timeless because truth is timeless. Christ taught love (and non-violence) and this, to me, means:
*the burning of heretics in 1500 was wrong, just as it would be today (something which pacifist Christians, such as the Anbaptists, proclaimed even then)
*it is wrong to stone one’s children or to stone an adultress, because it is doing violence to a brother or sister in Christ; no amount of social utility could ever make this act, which is a sin against one’s neighbor, into a non-sin
As a non-Christian, I personally don’t think that the passages in the Old Testament that spoke of slaughtering the Canaanites, or stoning adulterous women, were inspired by God. I perceive God in the Bible, but not in every single word of it.
What does generally disturb me, though, is how Christianity has been guilty of a double-standard in making no compromises to the timelessness of sexual morality. In other words, pre-marital sex and masturbation was wrong in 700 B.C.; it was wrong in 1500 A.D.; and it is wrong today.
I can’t help but deplore this double-standard regarding violence, where the burning of religious dissenters, for example (aka, heretics) was excused within the “context of the times,” or even is viewed as something which God commanded for the times. I’ve heard many times that “no one knew any better, in those days.” Well, through even a cursory study of history, I learned that people did know, at the time, even if their moral clarity put them in the minority.
It is many of these same Christians–those who view the appropriateness of violence as relative to the era in which one lives–who often condemn those in the secular culture that say, “the prohibition against pre-martial sex or against homosexuality is no longer valid; after all, times have changed.” Indeed, the Christian responds, “no – morality does not change with the fashions of the times. Morality is unchanging.”
I’ve come to the opinion that, if this is how a Christian views standards of chastity–timeless, non-negotiable, unchanging–it also should be how a Christian views standards of non-violence.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
you have been kind not to mention how they treated those who did not believe as they did.
- Status