Ridiculing Religion 2 - The Ridiculining

Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by gUt, Jan 21, 2013.

  1. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14,157
    Likes Received:
    2,577
    Being a Catholic is great. You can claim tax free status, tell non-Catholics they're immoral, protect paedophiles and get a nice holiday if you get caught protecting paedophiles.

    Seriously, Catholics. How can you support this organisation?
     
  2. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14,157
    Likes Received:
    2,577
    The beauty of religion, forever driving people apart:

    Christian fundamentalists confront Muslim leader at Brisbane mosque to condemn Islam

    Police have been called after an ugly confrontation broke out at a Brisbane mosque between activists describing themselves as Christian documentary makers and Islamic leaders.

    The group of at least four activists, who were involved in a similar incident at the Kuraby mosque yesterday, confronted worshippers at a Darra mosque in Brisbane's south-west just before midday.

    When they were denied access, a heated argument broke out between self-declared activist Logan Robertson and Ali Kadri from the Islamic Council of Queensland.

    Mr Kadri asked: "I'm trying to talk to you in a nice manner, why are you responding in such an aggressive manner?"

    Mr Robertson replied: "Because I hate the religion of Islam. I don't hate Muslims, I hate the religion."

    Police intervened and forced the group to leave the property.

    Authorities said a group of up to six men went to a mosque at Kuraby yesterday and harassed some of the worshippers in the lead-up to 1:00pm prayers.

    Nobody was injured in the incident and no charges were laid.

    Mr Kadri said a teenage boy was verbally abused during yesterday's incident and was called a terrorist.

    "Why did you abuse a 15-year-old Muslim kid then?" Mr Kadri asked.

    Mr Robertson replied: "We didn't abuse him."

    Mr Robertson, who said he represented the Pillar Baptist Church at Ipswich, also claimed he was part of a group making a film on Islam.

    "We're making a documentary about your false religion that's what we are trying to do," Mr Robertson said.

    "You are not a patriot, you are a hateful hatemonger — that's what you are, my friend," Mr Kadri said.

    "Despite you being a hatemonger, I don't hate you."

    'What's next, will they come into our houses?'
    Mr Kadri said the men were "extremists" and likened them to "white ISIS [Islamic State]".

    "Unfortunately if we don't rein these kind of people in this country, then these people in absence of law will not only just harm minorities like us.

    "They are going to harm their own people who don't agree with them ... so to me, he is an extremist," Mr Kadri said.

    "I think these kinds of people are white ISIS."

    Mr Kadri said security would be increased at mosques around the state and most of them would now be locked at night.

    "I don't think there is any justification for these kind of things ... our mosques are a peaceful congregation," he said.

    "Do we have to wait for somebody to get killed before we realise? This kind of hatred has to be addressed and condemned.

    "Before, it was individuals on the corner street ... now they've actually come inside a mosque — what's next, will they come into our houses?"

    Not long after the confrontation inside the Darra mosque, police stopped the men on the side of a road and confiscated their camera equipment.

    "We'll continue making our documentary," Mr Robertson said.

    He told media he was not racist.

    "We've got Asians in our church, there's Pacific Islanders in our church — there's all types of races in our church. We're not racist at all, it's about a religion," he said.

    Who is Logan Robertson?
    A self-proclaimed pastor of the Pillar Baptist Church, which opened at Goodna, west of Brisbane, within the past 12 months.

    It is not affiliated with the mainstream Baptist denomination.

    The church declares it is anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-Islam.

    Mr Robertson posts sermons on social media and also released a "documentary" critical of the Mormon faith.

    On the church's website, Mr Robertson describes his church as a "New Testament Independent Fundamental Baptist Church".

    "Our Church is a friendly group of believers who have a strong desire for truthful biblical preaching, that isn't watered down or compromised," the website says.

    In New Zealand, Mr Robertson sparked controversy by saying people in gay marriages should be shot, and that New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern should "get in the kitchen where women belong".

    He was rebuked by Baptist Churches of New Zealand in 2014, who said he had never been affiliated with their denomination.

    "The NZ Baptist churches have been demeaned by his vitriol, leaving many of our Baptist church members and pastors wrongly implicated by Robertson's actions," the church said.

    New Zealand police reportedly launched an investigation into Mr Robertson but dropped the case on the basis there was no evidence to suggest he had committed any crimes.
     
  3. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    Yes you do. But I reject the scholarship Jerome put in his commentary because it was superseded based on more recent discoveries.

    We've heard that before too. People used to think Daniel made Belshazzar up because no other historian recorded anything about him. Then we found out that there was indeed a Belshazzar who was co-regent and left in charge of Babylon at the time it fell to the Medes and Persians.

    But lets address some of these queries:

    There are two rebuttals to this. First I must point out that Soggin may indeed be in need of looking at his chronology since most people date the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's reign as 606/5BC and the battle of Carchemish firmly in 605BC. So rebuttal number 1 is that after Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar did lay siege to Jerusalem and take a few high ranking people captive. Babylonian historian Berossus alludes to this. The second and less common rebuttal is that when Daniel says in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim he means the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's vassal kingship under Nebuchadnezzar.

    Perplexing? Really. It is not uncommon at all to use the term father to mean anything from your actual father to a great-great-great-grandfather. This simply states that Belshazzar was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. Which he was. We've also known for at least 100 years that Belshazzar was used in oaths both individually and jointly with his father King Nabonidus, something that would not have occurred had he not been co-regent. So he was certainly more than lieutenant-general.

    Darius means 'King' so it is more likely that Darius is a title (sort of like Caesar) rather than a name.

    Explanation: The Jewish canon grew over time as books were added to it. Unsurprisingly books like Daniel, Esther etc that were written later were added later.
    Follow Up Question: How could a book that pretended to be written in the 6th century BC but was actually completed in the 2nd century BC be regarded as scripture and added to the canon within a decade or so.

    The earliest manuscripts for almost all of the OT are dated around the same time.

    Perhaps the readers should set aside their presuppositions.
     
  4. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    That makes no sense scientifically, logically or philosophically.

    What purpose? In your world view there is no ultimate purpose to any life.



    So you think everyone gets to decide for themselves or if your more communally minded every society gets to decide for themselves what is morally good and what is morally bad?



    You need to read verse 25 as well which is a recurring theme in Judges and especially the last few chapters. It says "everyone did as they saw fit". In other words this passage doesn't condone rape at all. It shows that when people disregard God's law terrible things such as rape happen. The last three chapters of Judges are all part of the same story and nothing, absolutely nothing in those chapters in condoned. The story is there as a condemnation on the people.


    When God removes his hand of restrain evil happens.


    Yes, captives are taken in war but this does not condone rape.



    What Absalom did to David's wives was not condoned at all.

     
  5. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    Not a clue. I know my pastor lives in a modest house and drives some run of the mill family sedan. I know the most senior leader in the Australian/South Pacific region and his predecessor were both in similar situations. Certainly when my brother car-pooled with them to work he was sitting in a Commodore, not an AMG Mercedes.

    EDIT: While I can't confirm this it has been noted in at least one place on the interwebs that the top dog of my denomination was on $87K in 2008. You'd think that 10 years on the salary would be more like $120K perhaps. You'd certainly earn more money managing our health or educational institutions.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
  6. Pantherjim.

    Pantherjim. Coach

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    Messages:
    13,496
    Likes Received:
    1,754
    Lord we beseech thee, we pray, that they can afford private health cover, or be rich enough to afford the hundreds and thousands we will charge them for the operation we are about to perform on them!

     
    Mr Spock! likes this.
  7. Mr Spock!

    Mr Spock! Coach

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    12,108
    Likes Received:
    1,829
    Lol...you reject anything which doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas.

    Btw the Jerome Biblical Commentary wasnt written by Jerome.

    Its only fundy evangelicals which believe that Daniel was written before the 2nd century.

    And Daniel is flat out wrong about Belshazzar. He was neither king nor son of Nebuchadnezzer - no matter how you try to avoid it.

    I dont think Soggin needs to take the claims of a fundamentalist ideologue with any degree of seriousness. Its not like your claims havent been heard and rejected.

    Lol....to explain darius away as a term for king is the ultimate in academic dishonesty. Once again this is the type of argument you have to make up because it shows your position to be complete fiction.

    Neither Ptolemy, Josephus nor the Babylonian historian Berosus who gives a thorough account of the end of Nabonidas who btw would appear to be the king who suffers from madness.

    Darius the Great ruled from 550 to 486 BCE. It was no made up title and we have extensive primary sources on his life including letters written to him as well as from the accounts of the Greek historian Herodotus. Cyrus the Great ruled from 600 to 530 BCE.

    Daniel even writes

    6:28So this Daniel enjoyed success in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.


    What is known is that no king of Babylon can be placed between the genuine historical figures of Belshazzar and Cyrus. Especially Darius. Daniel included him because he needed a Median king to fit in with his fictional account.

    As for the Jewish canon, it is striking that Daniel was placed as one of the writings and NOT Prophecy.

    So the Jews recognised the book as apocalyptic and not prophecy.

    The readers can make their own minds up after weighing up the evidence.
     
  8. Mr Spock!

    Mr Spock! Coach

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    12,108
    Likes Received:
    1,829
    Youtube videos by Christian apologists really dont mean much anyone else apart from you.

    The simple fact is that foreign slaves were bought and sold like American ones. And they remained slaves after their masters death and their children were slaves.

    Your attempt at justifying slavery really is pathetic.


    Oh and if you read Judges 21, apparently the Benjaminites had to kidnap women because the LORD made a breach with the other tribes because they wouldnt execute the women as god commanded.

    I'm surprised you havent gone down the but it was good for irrls to be kidnapped route like you did with paying rape victims.

    Btw was it morally bad for the writer of Leviticus to write that gays should be killed.
     
  9. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    I've explained my reasoning. Feel free to tell me why my reasoning is wrong.

    I don't care who wrote or compiled it, they used an out-dated theory.

    Actually, more and more liberal scholars are dating at least some of Daniel to the 6th century BC. John Collins, who you praised yesterday dates some of Daniel in the 6th century BC. There are also massive problems with a 2nd century dating as I've pointed out. Again, argue against those any time you want.

    No Daniel is spot on. Belshazzar was co-regent, even liberal scholars like Lacocque agree on that and the terms 'father' and 'son' are not used as strictly as we use them nowadays. For example, Jehu was called the son of Omri even though he was not of that bloodline even. It just meant he was in the line of kings.

    Who still holds to Soggin's date?

    It's not a made up argument, it is what Darius means but I failed to explain further the significance of it. Since Darius could be a title or a second name it has been proposed that in Daniel it refers to either Gubaru or Cyrus himself. Both a plausible. No one thinks it was Darius the Great.

    Nabonidas suffered a brief illness that he quickly recovered from. Nebuchadnezzar suffered from madness for 7 years (or seasons which would be about 2 years).

    Question: Why would a writer in the 2nd century BC allegedly get it so wrong and why would the Jews of that time accept a book that is so wrong. Josephus was very careful to state that the books of the Jewish canon were not inconsistent.

    Which can also be translated "Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, namely the reign of Cyrus the Persian." We know Cyrus' father was a Persian but his mother was a Mede. Could he have had two names, a Persian name and a Median name?

    Which is why no one puts Darius the Great in there. We do know that in the Medo-Persain empire that 'kings' did rule territories under the authority of THE king so Gubaru could have been the administrator over Babylon or, as I said earlier, Darius could refer to Cyrus himself. In fact we know from Cicero that Cyrus ruled for 9 years and died aged 70 which fits with the age of 62 given to Darius when he took over the kingdom.

    No its not. First of all the Septuagint places Daniel with the prophets in the 2nd century BC, Josephus places Daniel with the prophets in the 1st century AD and Christian church fathers such as Melito and Origen place Daniel even before Ezekiel. Find me a canon list that predates any of these guys with Daniel in the writings section. But even if Daniel was in the writings and not the prophets section what does that prove? He was still in the canon and viewed as authoritative. The Masoretes may have put him in the writings because he did not prophecy in the same manner as someone like Isaiah and Jeremiah.

    Not the Jewish scholars who translated the OT into Greek in the 2nd century BC and not Josephus.
     
  10. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    I present an explanation of slavery in the Bible. Feel free to point out its errors.

    No. That is not a fact at all. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade stole people against their will from Africa, took them to the Americas, sold them into perpetual slavery, them and their descendants. That is not at all like the slavery of the Ancient Near East that the Bible regulates. In fact the word slavery didn't even begin to enter our English translations until about 100 years ago. The term previously used was bondservant.

    You could only buy someone who was selling themselves as a bondservant. If they were a foreigner and the agreed length of time had not passed when the head of the household dies then the term was to be fulfilled under the son. It was not perpetual.

    Your refusal to even watch, let alone engage with an explanation of what it was really like shows that you just want to believe what you want to believe.

    What!? The other tribes made a pact amongst themselves that they wouldn't give their daughters to a Benjaminite. What Bible are you reading!?

    Because it's not good for girls to be kidnapped.
     
  11. myrrh ken

    myrrh ken Bench

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,754
    - Ultimate purpose for any living thing is to survive, thrive and propogate the species.

    - I'm not sitting through a 40 min youtube clip from some apologist cherrypicking verses. Yes there were "voluntary" slaves, but not the POW ones.

    - lol at God's restraint and not condoning what the evil humans did. Isn't God in control? He can't wash his hands off the whole affair. By actively creating the conditions, of course he's condoning it.

    - democratic societies decide morals and laws based upon the consensus of the views of its citizens, dont they
     
  12. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    Says who?

    He's not cherrypicking. You'd know that if you watched the video. If you're not willing to invest 40 minutes into looking at someone's informed view of the Bible then I'm guessing you're not really interested in exploring this topic at all in any meaningful manner.

    LOL all you like, you can't say that God condones evil simply because he let's evil run its course. The nations that came against Jerusalem were likewise condemned by God for their own evil. That's hardly condoning them isn't it.

    So if a society decided that rape was not immoral then rape is no longer immoral?
     
  13. myrrh ken

    myrrh ken Bench

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,098
    Likes Received:
    1,754

    - You assumed my world view suggests life has no purpose. Now you are disagreeing with me when I give you a purpose?

    - I find wiki more authoritative on slavery
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery

    - Did slave POWs have a choice to not be slaves any longer?

    - God chooses to let evil run its course does he not? Its like bringing a hungry dog to a bone and then taking no responsibility when it eats it.

    - how do you explain different people and societies having different morals? Rape is a perfect example. Back in biblical times under 16 was fine.
     
    Mr Spock! likes this.
  14. Mr Spock!

    Mr Spock! Coach

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    12,108
    Likes Received:
    1,829
    Lol....its pretty explanatory why you're wrong. Your understanding of how the books of the bible eere written is naive in the extreme.

    But its all a house of cards where if one gets pulled out the whole house comes tumbling down.

    Of course you dont care. That's what all ideologues say. Jws, muslims, catholics, they dont care either.

    Why care about facts?

    It is nonsense that liberal scholars are dating daniel in the 6th century. Complete and utter dishonesty.

    It is most commonly regarded by biblical scholars that Daniel was composed in the second century. It is only fundies and apolohists who refuse to accept that.

    No one heard of Belshazaar as king. Thats from historians from Greek and Babylonians. So once again, Daniel got his history wrong.

    Most biblical scholars hold to a second century date for Daniel.

    Your argument about Darius is completely ridiculous especially when you have an actual Darius reigning. A Darius which was looked upon favourably by the Jews. No, you're making up nonsense. The verse from Daniel makes it clear it wasnt Cyrus. And you've deliberately changed the verse to make it say something to fit in with your theories. Goodness me. Hows that for a new low. Neither was there any other monarch.

    We know the history of Babylon and Persia. You cant falsify that. It was Cyrus who defeated Nabonidas. We have his own accounts of it. Now you want to stick others in there to fit your ideology.

    Judaism places Daniel in the Ketuvim (the writings) with song of solomon and other non prophetic writings. It is not a book in the Neviim (Prophets). Thats simple fact. Its only Christianity which places Daniel in the prophets. In fact the talmud makes it clear that Daniel was not a prophet. And first of all the septuagint didn't contain Daniel at all. Neither was it placed in the canon of Sirach. So it was either unknown or not considered canonical.

    Most probably the former.

    And its far more probable, based on the evidence, that daniel was written second century after the events he inaccurately described.
     
  15. Mr Spock!

    Mr Spock! Coach

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    12,108
    Likes Received:
    1,829
    Yes. Like your explanation of genocide, murdering gays and rape, it convinces no one but people like yourself.

    But you cant see that.

    Foreign slaves were the same as American slaves. That is a fact. They were bought and sold. They were captured in war. In fact the Jewish slave trade continued into the first milennium CE. At least show some honesty. The text is clear that foreign slaves remained slaves after their owners death and were passed on like property. You obviously dont even know the bible. Their children were also regarded as slaves. You continually and dishonestly equate jewish slaves with foreign slaves. They were not the same.

    Lol..you can quibble over bondservant but when you own a person as property its called a slave in every other language.

    Lol...I'm on a phone and I know too well the apologetics rubbish that you try to use to defend your own beliefs.

    Lol...read Judges 21.

    God commanded them to kill the women and they didnt and that pissed god off. And from that god created division among the tribes

    “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones. 11“This is the thing that you shall do: you shall utterly destroy every man and every woman who has lain with a man.” 12And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins who had not known a man by lying with him; and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

    13Then the whole congregation sent word and spoke to the sons of Benjamin who were at the rock of Rimmon, and proclaimed peace to them. 14Benjamin returned at that time, and they gave them the women whom they had kept alive from the women of Jabesh-gilead; yet they were not enough for them. 15And the people were sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

    16Then the elders of the congregation said, “What shall we do for wives for those who are left, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?”


    Yep good story that.

    It wadn't good for them to be kidnapped but it was good for them to have their throats slit?

    Btw you never answered if the writer of Leviticus was being immoral for advocating the death penalty for gay people.
     
  16. Mr Spock!

    Mr Spock! Coach

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    12,108
    Likes Received:
    1,829
    Bible declares gay people to be executed, society says no.

    So who's right?
     
  17. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    14,441
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    I'm not a racist, I'm a bigot!

    A fundamentalist bigot.

    What a f**king tool.
     
    Mr Spock! likes this.
  18. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    Yes, an honest mistake. I misread Collins. What I should have said was that many liberal scholars are refusing to date Daniel 1-6 in the 2nd century. That doesn't mean they date them as far back as the 6th though. But this break up of Daniel a work in progress raises another issue. Why would a book that was obviously added to in the 2nd century be included in the canon in the 2nd century with the additions? Those that date Daniel 1-6 in the 3rd century still need to explain why chapters 1-6 use Persian words that were no longer in use and why in the Hellenistic age only three or four greek transliterations were used.

    John Collins, the guy you referred to, does not think all of Daniel was written in the 2nd century.

    Xenophon, when describing the fall of Babylon, said that the king was slain and that the king was a riotous, indulgent, cruel, and godless young man. Nabonidus was none of those things, nor was he killed during the fall of Babylon. Obviously Xenophon was describing Belshazzar but didn't know his name. Note that he called him king.

    The same construct in Daniel 6:28 is also found in Chronicles 5:26 where two names are given but for the same king. So it's not a new or unusual reading, the question is does Cyrus fit? The answer is yes. Cyrus is half Mede, Nabonidus himself referred to Cyrus King of the Medes (although others don't) and Cyrus was 62 when Babylon fell and reigned 9 years which matches data for Darius the Mede.

    I'm not sticking others in there, I favour the Darius is Cyrus theory. But we also know that general Gubaru actually did the conquering and Cyrus came days after and handed Gubaru the governorship.

    The translators who wrote the Septuagint put Daniel with the prophets, as did Josephus. They were Jews.

    Really? I've seen no evidence for this at all. Please provide some.

    Daniel wasn't the only book or person not mentioned by Sirach. Did Sirach not know of Job or Ezra or Esther? Nor is it right to call it a canon list. It is list of notable people that in most cases aligns with most of the books of the Bible but in some cases includes people who do not have a book named after them or in the case of Simon son of Onias are not even mentioned in the canon.

    Except the only historical claim that can even be described as difficult to resolve is that of who Darius the Mede is. We also know that with respect to Belshazzar Daniel is more accurate than 5th-2nd century BC historians. You also haven't proposed any explanation as to why the Hebrew is Late Hebrew and not that of the 2nd century, the Aramaic is Old Imperial Aramaic that was no longer in use in the 2nd century. No explanation as to how the few Persian words in Daniel made it there when they fell out of use after Alexander the Great defeated Persia and why there is only 4 transliterated Greek words, all to do with musical instruments, when the Ancient Near East had been well and truly Hellenised by the 2nd century and many Greek words had infiltrated both Hebrew and Aramaic.
     
  19. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    America slaves were stolen and forced against their will into slavery. Slaves in the OT chose to be slaves as a way to stay alive during bad times. American slaves could not buy their freedom. OT slaves could earn money and if they earned enough to buy back their freedom they could do so. American slave traders could make a lot of money and did not fear legal action against them. The OT explicitly outlawed kidnapping people and selling them as slaves.

    Foreign slaves were treated differently to Israelite slaves. But foreign slaves were protected by the same laws concerning fair treatment of slaves however they did not automatically go free after a certain number of years like Israelite slaves did. But that does not mean that they were automatically perpetual slaves or even if they were that this was a bad thing. Again, slavery was an ancient form of social security. If a foreign slave had no prospects of a better life apart from the family then having a secure future with a family would be a good thing.

    You insistence that ANE slavery was no different to American slavery is driven by the desire to hate Christianity.

    I did.

    Why do you only quote the last half of verse 10 Spock? Why did you try to make it look like God said go and strike Jabesh-gilead and not the congregation of Israel. Dishonest much?

    Yeah, in case you haven't noticed I don't bother engaging with you on that subject anymore. Sick and tired of being misrepresented. In fact on the whole I tend to stay away from you and your dishonest manner. It's not worth my time. I'm engaging with you with respect to Daniel in order to correct your errors and lack of knowledge but when you misrepresent me I have no desire to keep going.
     
  20. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,578
    Likes Received:
    606
    Yes. Any atheistic worldview has no ultimate purpose.

    Why?

    Probably not. But first of all if they chose to no longer be slaves what would they then do? They have no land let alone home to go to. But most of all, and this was my first point, the Bible regulates slavery but this does not mean it condones it. Another example of this is divorce. There are laws concerning divorce but Jesus made it clear that divorce is not condoned.

    No it's not.

    If God were to not let evil run it's course then He would have to turn us all into robots.

    Rape was never fine the Bible. The punishment for the man was death.

    But yes, you do bring up a point that I've gone over a number of times in this thread because people don't understand the difference between ontology and epistemology and the effect of sin. In other words, the existence of objective moral truths and duties does not mean that they are all automatically known by one and all especially when people desire to rebel against some or all of those morals. In short, that there are many different moral systems has no effect whatsoever on the existence of objective moral values and duties.

    But my question to you still stands do you think if a society decided that rape was not immoral would it then be ok to rape?
     

Share This Page