Zombrex wrote: » Do you believe a husband can rape his wife? If you do do you believe that the Israelites had this concept?
(btw you left out the bit about the woman raped in a town ...)
Aren't you glad that William Wilberforce argued that God said the North Atlantic slave trade was wrong? Aren't you glad that Martin Luther King argued that God said racial segregation was unChristian?
tommy2bad wrote: » After near 2000 years they coped on ! Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right. Yes ?
Soul Winner wrote: » If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good? What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not? Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist. Heading out now but will re-replay in a few hours.
Soul Winner wrote: » Yes I believe a husband can rape his wife. Do I believe he should rape his wife? Only if his wife consents to it. But then it wouldn't be rape would it? I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to have sex, and therefore rape is always always always going to be wrong in my book for any man or woman to do, even if it was legalized in every country in the world tomorrow. It is objectively wrong, which means it is wrong independent of what our collective moral code eventually evolves or devolves into.
Zombrex wrote: » Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to Zombrex to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?
PDN wrote: » FYP
Zombrex wrote: » Er, we have been over this. You objected to me assuming they were raped, neither of us doubted that these women (or at the very least some of them) were forced into marriage.
Are you changing your position?
Sonics2k wrote: » Actually there was no reason to fix his post, he gave a completely accurate view point.
PDN wrote: » That is not true, I see no evidence of anyone being forced into marriage.
Zombrex wrote: » Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.
Deuteronomy 21 10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?
PDN wrote: » Given the evidence we've discussed, I would lean towards the interpretation that they did have the option to refuse marriage.
PDN wrote: » I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't offered anything convincing.
Soul Winner wrote: » If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good?
What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not?
Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.
Zombrex wrote: » Sorry what evidence was that? You presented evidence of woman wanting to marry the soldiers, but I don't remember evidence of women refusing to and this being respect. Apologies if I missed that. .
Would the fact that they were captured prisoners of war who had no choice in anything else that was happening to them not be a convincing argument that when a passage authorizing a soldier to take a captured woman as his wife she had no choice in the matter?
Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she has a choice in the matter, do you have any reason to suppose she had a choice in this?
Now again if there is evidence of this happening that I've missed I'm happy to accept that choice was involved.
PDN wrote: » The evidence that these women were not being treated as rape victimns normally would be, and the examples from elsewhere in Scripture where women made such a choice.
PDN wrote: » You said you didn't find this convincing - but I think it is more convincing than your evidence for the alternative which was, er, silence.
PDN wrote: » No, I don't think it would. The laws governing foreigners and aliens in Israel don't give us any reason, as far as I can see, for assuming that rape must be part of the deal.
PDN wrote: » Let's just rephrase that question, using exactly the same line of logic: Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she was forced to marry anyone, do you have any reason to suppose she was forced to marry anyone? Logic's a bitch, isn't it?
PDN wrote: » Oh no, you don't get away with that. I'm saying that there are two possible interpretations here - and that I don't see convincing evidence to rule either of them out.
Zombrex wrote: » Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?
Zombrex wrote: » Well lets stick to forced marriage, then we can deal with rape. Do you think the woman had a choice in the matter over the marriage?
Ah now PDN, you know that isn't like for like.
No actually that isn't what you said. You said don't think my interpretation is correct and are leaning to the alternative. That does require reasoning and evidence, which you say you have already presented but whcih I must have missed.
tommy2bad wrote: » What I'm trying to do is find out if God is guilty.
PDN wrote: » I've already said that I don't know - but that given the lack of evidence otherwise I lean towards the opinion that they did have a choice.
Soul Winner wrote: » The command for the husband is to love his wife. Forcing her to have sex when she doesn't want to is not loving his wife, so no I don't believe that.
Soul Winner wrote: » If God decides to kill somebody for sin then He is acting in accordance with His Own Word where it says for sin comes death. If He exists then He is the Law giver to man as man's creator. When a man rapes a woman a punishment was to be implemented against that man, which said punishment was dependent on whether the woman was pledged to be married or not. If she was then the punishment was death, if not then the punishment was for the man to marry her which resulted in her being entitled to whatever wealth he had. God does not condone rape no matter what way you try or how much might like Him to fit that picture.
Zombrex wrote: » No, that isn't what you said. You said given the evidence for your position you are leaning to it, the implication being that this evidence contradicts my position.
I don't give a hoot PDN if you simply pick the interpretation that you prefer. I started to ask you to back that up when you started on about how the evidence suggests one over the other.
If you are saying you have no evidence either way and you are just picking the one you like best then I've no issue with that but equally no concerns that there is something I've missed some where.
twinQuins wrote: » Based on whether or not it is conducive to the functioning of a civil society. Humans are social creatures and our laws and moral codes reflect this. They're based around preventing or punishing actions which harm the group. Does something have to qualify our judgement (at least in the way you seem to mean)? But if you must have something then it is, as I've said, predicated upon whether an action is conducive or not to the continued functioning of society. There really is no "good" or "evil", they're just descriptors we give to actions which are beneficial or harmful to the group. They're from a time when our understanding of ourselves was less complete than it is now. Nothing is objectively wrong. You will never be able to understand this position unless you accept that very basic fact: all moral codes are man made and hence subjective. If humans didn't exist then we wouldn't exist to invent these moral codes in the first place. Your point is moot. This is where the problem occurs. Simply put, our views are antithetical.
Zombrex wrote: » What about forcing her to drink poison because he is jealous and concerned she is having an affair? Does that fall under loving your wife?
