Jeremy Pallant

Now understand, I'm not defending the Bible in any way, just throwing something else onto the theological barbeque.

Ezekiel 20:25 "I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by...."

Are we, therefore, to understand that god is not good? If he did it once, could he not do it again?

Lobstrosity

Yes, a right is something that is DUE somebody. It's not something that is FORCED upon them. According to this law the woman has no right to reject said marriage to this rapist she most likely despises. Once again, the right to happiness does not mean that I get to shoot you the second you're depressed. I can't force you to be happy, it just means you're legally entitled to it SHOULD YOU WANT IT. People convicted of a crime aren't given the "right" to go to prison. Similarly, people who are forced to marry their rapists aren't gaining any rights. Their fate is fully mapped out from the get-go. Please, for the love of god, why can't you understand this?

Seriously, can you please explain to me how this law is any different than a "you break it you buy it" policy enforced in stores? Do you think that policy is there to provide rights to the merchandise? Is it morally good because it keeps the poor broken merchandise from being thrown out right in the store and instead requires the buyer to wait until he gets home to throw it out?

Not a right. Woman = property. Woman gets shitty life married to a rapist who doesn't want her and can do anything he pleases to her. Woman = dirt. Law = fucked up. Morality verdict: bad.

Wow, that's pretty sick. So for you, morality is a function of how many people are affected? Morals govern how we treat the individual. As such it is wholly irrelevant how many people the law applies to. For example, a law that orders the death of innocent people is morally repugnant no matter how often it is carried out (at least is is under a system of absolute morals--such as you find in the Bible). It's true that utilitarianism doesn't support this view, but if you are following Christian morality, you are not a utilitarianist.

Similarly, a law that lets a man marry any single woman he wants simply by raping her is also morally repugnant. It means that rape is perfectly fine so long as you intend to marry your rape victim. Rape is always morally wrong. Any law which fails to universally punish rape (e.g. this law) is therefore always morally wrong under any absolute standard of morality.

Christian

Chuck,

Just because you choose to ignore a key element of the situation does not mean that it is immaterial.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Queen of Swords,

Of course not.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Bill,

Of course not. What have I said that suggests such a conclusion?

The logical end of my defense is simply what I have stated.

What we are discussing is a law given to ancient Israel. The abolute morality of an immutable diety is reflected in that law. In a different context and for a different purpose it would be relfected differently.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Doc58,

I disagree.

Jeremy,

My understanding of that verse in Ezekiel is that it does not refer to the Law of Moses. God "gave them over" to such laws by permitting them to embrace the laws of the pagan nations whose idols they were worshiping instead of God.

Respectfully,

Christian

Christian

Lobstrosity,

We're obviously just talking past each other now, and I'm about out of time tonight. I'll think on your post again tomorrow and see if there if I can find some constructive discussion left between us.

Respectfully,

Christian

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Christian
Of course not.

If rapists do not make good husbands, why compound the crime by requiring a raped woman to marry a man who thinks so little of her that he forcefully took her virginity?

Would it not be better to pass a law which allowed a raped woman to marry a man who didn't start out with this very big strike against him?

I wonder how good a father a rapist would be.

Bill Snedden

Well, I suppose it might be contained in this very same post:

If a moral law is absolute, it is absolute. Culture, context, etc., are moot. If rape is wrong, then it is wrong. Always and everywhere. If it is wrong, it should be punished, not rewarded.

Let's take a close look at exactly what you're saying.

A man rapes a woman. His "punishment" is to marry her.

What about the victim? She is condemned to live with the man who abused her. The man who took from her, by force, something she can never retrieve. Who exactly is being punished here?

You cite the context of ancient culture in your "defense", but you seem to ignore that in that context, a wife is the property of her husband. So, the wronged, deflowered, abused woman is given to her abuser as his "punishment?" This is the justice of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity?

Clutch hit the nail on the head: this is the worst form of situational ethics masquerading in the guise of absolute morality.

As I noted in my example, the logical end of your defense is that culture determines the sanction for offenses. Because women were considered inferior, rape was simply not considered as seriously as it is today. Therefore, the only recompense considered necessary was to ensure that the woman would be able to get a husband. Her feelings, her freedom, indeed, any effects upon her whatsoever were moot. This in itself is morally unacceptable and yet that is the situation with which your puerile "god" is apparently quite happy to mete out his ineffective and obscene "punishment".

It is quite amazing to me to see the contortions of logic and reasoning that occur when people attempt to defend the antiquated ethics of a long-dead culture. It is quite clear that the naturalistic explanation triumphs here. These people simply didn't have the knowledge or experience (socially, that is) to recognize the moral deficiencies inherent in their culture. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity could have, should have, and would have done better.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Invader Tak

Old Man, I would find you a lot funnier if I thought you didn't vote.

Um, you did notice the qualifier "by force" didn't you?

Do wives have equal shootin' rights? I'm just askin'.

Those uppity infidel wimmins sure are scary.