Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Rape commanded?

JeffPerado has asserted that God commands rape.

On that note...

1) I was corrected by a friend - I should have said "God did not COMMAND rape..." as opposed to "ordain" in that last post. Sloppy terminology from me.
2) JeffP has over and over again shown his inability to even discuss WHY sthg is wrong or right, fundamentally.
3) To Phinehas' link (arigatou) I'd add the following:
Link 1
Link 2
4) A woman who is raped but her cries are not heard is to be stoned to death - Deut 22:23-24
Um, no. You've completely confused two different sets of verses. If this is the best you've got...

If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

5) Jacob's daughter Dinah is raped. God forgives the rape if circumcision is performed

Show me in the passage where God says anything about it or recommends circumcision. No, He doesn't say anythg. This is history - the author is recording what happened and adds no commentary on its rightness or wrongness.
Did you even read the passage or just strip all this out of the Skeptic's Annotated Baybuhl or something?

Might I add that Levi and Simeon are God-chosen.

Ah, which means that they're sinless! In JeffPerado's world, that's apparently the deal.

6) Judges 21 tells of the sexual needs and advances of the Benjaminites. Killing the men and taking the women to be thier wives despite their resistence.

Where do the women resist? That's not in the text; JeffPerado just assumes it.
These women needed protection; were they to remain single their whole lives? Not at that time, in that place, in that culture.
These were for MARRIAGE, not rape. The Mosaic Law specifically explains how marriage and betrothal are to take place, to protect both the man and the woman.

God condones forced marriage

That's just anachronistic. Not only can JeffPerado not explain why any act is wrong or right, he is guilty of imposing his moral timeframe on other cultures. Everyone can play that game.

37 comments:

John Morales said...

Rhology, you're welcome to your hermeneutics but as always I'll point to the schismatic history of Christendom as evidence that the Bible is and has been interpreted in a multitude of ways.

Besides, you've covered this already here, and I stand by what I wrote in the comments.

jeffperado said...

Rhology,

Can I start calling you Rhology, super-genius from now own? For you truly are a super genius if you can read a clear passage in the bible and interpret for all of us rubes what God really meant.

But I have to wonder one thing. If God says rape is ok in certain circumstances (that being God's special people) but is wrong for all the rest, and if standards of rape and marriage can change but still be the same; my question to you is how do you (and I mean you as a mere human) ascertain when something is right (moral) in the bible, but wrong (immoral) in real life? You've admitted to acceptable cases of rape as written in the bible, and you called them moral. And you have stated that rape is immoral. How do you, as a mere human, know this?

I would dare say you know it exactly in the same way as I know it. Because it causes harm.

You claim I dodge all questions on morality, but I have laid my entire stance out for you. What causes harm is immoral.

But you, on the other hand, have only some book from which to guide your morality, and that very same book says some things are moral in certain cases, whereas you say they are always immoral. And in other cases that book says some things are always immoral when even you admit they are moral under certain circumstances.

That brings me back to my point: You must be a super-genius if you can ascertain just where the bible was being absolute and it really meant relative, and where it was being relative but it actually meant absolute.

With your super-genius ability to determine these things you are now on par with even the most average atheist when it comes to morality.

And that must make you ever so proud. Because you ignore my answers and call them dodges does not make your super-genius Christianity any better than mere average atheistic morality. I answered every single one of your questions fully and with documentation. That you do not accept that means merely that your super-genius has come up against the roadrunner.

Look, it is very simple: Different people have different ways at arriving at morality. People with flawed morals wind up dying out and those with useful morals flourish.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Rhology said...

Jeff,

Nope, never admitted that there is divinely-commanded rape in the BIble. Since this whole post was written against that very statement, I don't know how one could come to that conclusion.

If you don't know how to interpret a statement - any statement - then why are you even here?
Tell you what, I'll just interpret your statement to mean that you've repented before Christ and have become His follower. And that you ate candy and scrambled eggs for lunch. Welcome to the fold of God, brother!
All ridiculousness aside, read this for help with this.

I know rape is immoral b/c God has said it is. If there were no God, there would be no objective basis for morality, so rape can be moral to you and immoral to me, and there's no adjudication between us save sheer force or chance agreement.

What causes harm is immoral.

"Harm" is defined by different people different ways.
Not everyone accepts your definition.
You apparently don't have any way to tell me how you know that what causes harm is immoral. You just made it up. Well, what's to stop someone else from making up their own rule that rape IS moral?

Most of your post is predicated on the false statement that God in the Bible commands rape.
The rest of it is just question-begging statements about how you are apparently the Pope of Morality. I must've missed the mitre in that picture on your blog profile, but let me take a few days' thought before I kiss your ring.

Peace,
Rhology

jeffperado said...

Rhology,

I want to thank you. No, really I do. You have personally wiped away any last lingering doubt that I have when it comes to Christian apologetics. I argue facts and concrete biblical passages, and you wave them away with your magical feelings and faith-based wand of god.

But I envy you. Yes I do. I really really do eny you, to take a clear and simple passage of the bible and turn it into whatever you want it to be is an amazing and uplifting ability. I mean I cite specifics, I cite clear passages and you just simply ignore that and replace it withy your own mythical "God is love", no matter what the situation; that is pure beauty.

I just wish I had your powers of re-interpretation. Then I could take a passage where God commands the Hebrews to kill everything (including livestock) except for the young virgin girls, with which the Hebrews are free to do with whatever they please, and turn that that into a beautiful moralistic story.

But I still think, and I am still an atheist, mind you, that raping virgin girls is wrong. And I say that in spite of the fact that the bible condoned this very thing! (Numbers 31:18) I mean, seriously, what value does a virgin girl have that a virgin boy does not have, if it is not sex? Yet the virgin boys were killed.

I have explained my position thoroughly. I have explained how morality can exist in a world without a magical sky-daddy. I have laid all this out in clear and easy to explain language.

Yet you persist in your vain attempt to ignore all this, and even go so far as to defend the inane "moral" dictates you can easily and simply find in your very own bible.

I have pointed out a few simple problems in your prime Ten Commandments, yet you completely ignore answering that. You demore on what the definition of "neighbor" is. Are you actually Bill Clinton? You ignore the question of children honoring their incestual and sexually abusing parents. Are you blind?

I answer every single question to the fullest, and just because you don't like the fact that I am able to do so, you ignore the facts? You blind yourself to the truth that I have given full and factual answers to every single possible mutation of every question you ask, but ignore all the answers because they are uncomfortable to you.

Do you hate the truth? Is that what I am supposed to gather from you?

I love the truth. That is why I continue to engage you. I have provided the truth. I have provided it down to the last fact. I use your bible, your dogma, your doctrine. Your very own words. Yet you deny all that to score cheap points by calling me a denialist?

I acknowledge the bible, I write about the bible. But really all I see in your responses are your personal feelings, your personal beliefs, your own "sense" of what "God" really means when he wrote what he wrote.

Maybe I should have you debate the pope instead of me.

Yes, that's it. From now on, I will forward your inquieries to the poep, and let him respond to you. Then you can argue and deny aother man of God...

I can see that you an I have little more to debate. I quote the bible, I quote actual christian thinking, I quote actual Christian morality, and compare it to atheistic morality in detail, and all I get from you is faith and feeling. The facts of the bible trump your faith and feeling every time. I have proven that time and again. These rape quote I confounded you with are only the tip of the iceberg. You denied the words of God to me, and to all your readers. Let your god and more importantly, your readers, judge you.

For I am through. I can only argue fact for so long.

Rhology said...

You crack me up, man. I'm more than happy that your comment be the last word.

Lucian said...

It doesn't say "virgin boys", it says "kill all the males among the little ones" (now, You do understand that warfare was, -back then, in the good ol' days, a "man-thing", right? ... unless, of course, You believe in the existence of the legendary Amazons-) ... and the *ONE* thing that boys (unlike their girly counter-parts) have is not merely their dicks (You pervert little American, You!), but their God-given manhood, which in this particular case would've concretely materialized itself eventually in an acute sense of righteous revenge; -- i.e., they would've ploted to avenge their fathers' extermination in the war.

Girls, on the other hand, don't have this sense, so it would've been rather pointless, to say the least. --> there are always exception to every rule, such as it was the case with Attila's wife ... but there's a *reason* WHY *that* made history ...

"Keep them for yourselves" --> does the word "handmaiden" mean anything to You? (Yes, many would've more than probably been married to them ... that again, many wouldn't have been). --> Are You pervert little Americans always so sex-focused!? :-\

----------
As for the OTHER examples, I understood them when I read them the first time, being merely 4-5 yrs of age, and my understanding as an Orth. is the same as Rhologys', who's a Calvinist. (Honestly, now, there're many points of divergence between us Orth., Cath., and Prot. ... but the very clear meaning of these verses were never among them:

-- the example from Deuteronomy is about women which are [I don't know how to put it mildly] ... say we just say "suspiciously silent" while being "raped" ... which, -unless they're by nature mute-, doesn't happen ... which obviously meant that they weren't "raped" in the first place ...

-- as to the other one, the one about the righteous revenge of Dinah's brothers for the desecration of their sister's virginal purity, I don't understand Your objection to it in the first place :-\ Care to enlighten me a bit on that one? :-|

----------
And how on God's green Earth do You manage to link the 5th Commandment to child-abuse!?? :-0

Lucian said...

I'm also unable to follow Your judgement on Judges 21. (I mean, why do You think the girls were there in the first place? A Biblical-times "all-night girls' hang-out" !? :-/ ). The sole and whole purpose for them being assembled there in the first place was to find good spouses for themselves... But since Benjamin's generation didn't have such a good reputation anymore [due to certain recent events that have happened and which the Biblical narrator narrates to us in great detail in the Book's last chapters] a little short-cutting, or bending, of the rules was necessary, and certain protocolary corners had to be cut, ... otherwise the entire Benjaminic dynasty would've perished from the face of the earth, which thing, needless to say, is less than desirable, unless one's switched into >national suicide mode<. :-(

jeffperado said...

Rhology wrote:
"You crack me up, man. I'm more than happy that your comment be the last word."

Hey you cannot steal my words. How many times have I already said that to you. Come up with some original material at least.

jeffperado said...

Thanks Lucian. I could not have come with a better anti-Christian statement myself.

Handmaiden indeed.

I say, exactly. But I am amused at your chacterization of American "sex-crazed". Only in america are people so crazed about sex that they refuse to admit that it exists. In virtually every other country around the world (China is an oddball -- but that is because of their population problem) sex is not an issue. Naked women, expressions of sex and all that like, are wildly accepted. Only in America is the "obsession" with sex in the negative.

So I really do not know what your point is.

jeffperado said...

Oh and Lician,

All that [expletive eleted and replaced with...] nonsense about rape not being rape because the helpless girl said nothing is vile. Rape is rape. If a man forces himself on a girl and that girl is too frightened to say anything is not rape, but the same man who forces himself on the same girl who subsequently screams bloody murder is rape is beyond absurd.

Rape is rape.

And more importantly, rape is rape especially when recorded after-the-fact, by a group of mysogenist men who claim it isn't because of a lack of bravery by the young girl. That is disgusting. Only child pornogrophers would make that sort of claim that you make and that is made in the bible.

jeffperado said...

Oh, and rhology, I am Jeffperado, not JeffPerado. How difficult is that to get right? "Jeffperado" comes from an old joke. It has to deal with the Eagles song, "Desperado" Now would you, rhology, call that song "DesPerado"?

I didn't think so.

Oh, and can I add a big "heh" to this?

Rhology said...

Oh, thanks for the clarification. I was taking "Perado" for your last name. jeffperado it is, thanks again. I know it is a little irritating when people mess up your handle (people call me "rhoblogy" all the time).

-Rhology

Lucian said...

nonsense about rape not being rape because the helpless girl said nothing

Faith is not the same thing as credulity: such helpless girls or women are the first to cry or shout out for help. And in this case it's obviously not rape, but adultery, both people involved in it being responsible, and not just one of them.

That's why the two situations are mentioned: one in the wilderness, where even were one to shout or cry out for help chances are unlikely that anyone's going to hear him any way; and the other one in a dwelled place.

-----
I'm also left without an answer as to how exactly this "commands rape", as You concluded. Care to enlighten me, Mr. Perado?

John Morales said...

Lucian: Care to enlighten me, Mr. Perado?

Look at the comment preceding yours; I cannot determine if you're trying to be playful, insulting or are just slow.

But it sure doesn't make you sound genuine.

Lucian said...

The fact that rapists were in the Old Covenent stoned to death commands rape? How?

The Bible is also available in plain English and the passages that You make mention of are in no way un-understandable (I mean, it's not like it's the Book of Daniel, or the Book of Revelation, that we're discussing here :-| ). I myself understood these passages as a child, and I was only four or five yrs old... and You're tellin' me that You, -of all people!-, at fourty years of age, do not understand them!? :-\ Please! If You're looking for someone to 'sucker', I'm not available; as I said, I'm a man of faith, not a man of credulity ... and I only see in You a man that either does not understand his own mother-tongue, ... or is just raging without reason against something which he just simply loves to hate (I bet on #2). Let me illustrate this by way of a clear example from one of Your own comments:

a group of mysogenist men, etc

So, ... let me see if I get this straight: the Bible is misoginistic because it commands rape, which is doesn't, but it does (or it has to), because it's misoginistic. (What kind of circular, convoluted logic is this?). :-\

(And You still haven't answered my ONE question, ... although I gave an answer to about all of Yours).

Lucian said...

But I am amused at your chacterization of American "sex-crazed".

Glad You are! (I'm not). That again, ... maybe that's just the way God made you ... :>

Lucian said...

Naked women, expressions of sex and all that like, are wildly accepted.

Yeah, right ... where? (In China, India, and Subsaharian Africa?) :-/
(Again, ... ONLY an American would make such a stupid statement).

Rhology said...

See more comments on this from Mariano of Answering Atheism.

magx01 said...

"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife."

Quick, easy question: Do you think this is, or ever was, morally acceptable? Do you think "god's" justifcation for them (last sentence in the quote) is/are/were right/fair/the best and or/only consideration that warranted mention?

"So you shall purge the evil from your midst."

A woman who does not cry out during a rape is evil? Agree or disagree.

Please don't dodge these questions. If you have any integrity, please give me a straight response.

magx01 said...

"I know rape is immoral b/c God has said it is. If there were no God, there would be no objective basis for morality...."

What renders "god"'s dictates objective?

Rhology said...

Hi magx01,

Was what morally acceptable? The death penalty for fornication? Yes, it was morally acceptable and remains morally acceptable, but most countries do not practice that penalty today. Which is OK too.

Was fornication morally acceptable? No, never.

And yes, God's ideas are the only ones worth considering. All others are sub-ideal, and depending on what they are, can be mentioned as less-bad than others. But why be less bad? Why not go for the best? This is one reason why God's patience with sinful man is amazing.


A woman who does not cry out during a rape is evil? Agree or disagree.

You phrased your question badly. All women are evil. So are all men.
But I think you probably meant the ACTION, so... The point (given the context) is that she consented to the sex act vs she did not consent to the sex act. Consenting to any sex act outside of marriage is evil, yes.


What renders "god"'s dictates objective?

Please see here.


Please don't dodge these questions. If you have any integrity, please give me a straight response.

Fair enough, as long as you agree to give ME straight answers when I ask you questions.

magx01 said...

Well, we obviously disagree. However, there isn't much for me to say, as, while I disagree and hate the content of your answers, your responses were consistent, and not contradictory or hypocritical in any way. Your resposnes follow from your beliefs.

Your response and that of others I have encountered in the past in simliar discussions really make it clear that if one does accept this god, and this god as the arbiter of morality, we will always come to a presuppositional impasse, and questions such as these will prove frutiless time and again.

You believe in this god and you believe him to be the author of morality. I believe his 'morlas' to be disgustingly primitive (not that I believe he exists).

Neither one of us will budge unless we have a change in fundamental presuppositions (god is not real vs god is real, god is immoral vs god is moral, etc).

Argh, it's so frustrating!

The fact that you actually think those actions are not onlay justified, but the moral thing to do......ugh. But pointing this out has no effect, since you truly believe in your theology.

Total impasse.

But hey, I like that you were honest, and didn't try to get out of it, as many do, when they recognize that they are being viewed ina negative light for actually defending killing a woman who was raped and too frightened to cry out. Or killing a woman who was raped and ended up liking it. Whatever. Killing the woman, period. And the man (woman more egregious though).

My brain screams for me to scream REALLY???? KILLING THE WOMAN WHO WAS RAPED IS MORAL?

It's just so hard for me to think that people really believe that.

I dunno.

Rhology said...

magx01,

I thank you for your honest response.
My principal thought is that you claim to be an atheist and yet you don't live like it. You can't. Your conscience is screaming at you that true injustice and evil exist in the world. But if atheism is true, there's no such thing as Overriding Cosmic Objective Justice or Good. There's just what you think, what I think, and what happens. If I think vanilla ice cream is tasty and you think it's disgusting, and you decide to kill me over that quarrel, so what? You just shortened my existence by ~50 years. In the course of eternal heat death, which is where the universe is heading if atheism is true, that means nothing. You changed the configuration of my molecules, reduced the gene pool by one more weak set of genes who couldn't defend itself, rid the world of my mouth to feed, my thirst to satisfy, my carbon footprint. You probably toughened up my children by making them adapt to their environment more rudely and quickly than otherwise; they now have to defend themselves at a younger age. And that makes the race last longer.
So what, so what, so what?

All men are simply bags of protoplasm trying to pass on our genes to the next generation, if atheism is true. And in fact, all high-sounding but empty platitudes of "we can rise above our genes" (as expressed by Dick Dawk in the last chapter or two of The Selfish Gene and echoed ad infinitum by many others) aside, given that "rising" and "above" are moral statements and atheism offers no foundation by which we can know objectively good morality from objectively bad morality nor a telos or purpose toward which we should aspire, I don't see why rape (as long as you're strong and clever enough not to get caught) wouldn't in fact confer an evolutionary advantage on the rapist. Each agent in an evolutionary scheme is motivated to pass his genes on to the next generation, and in this competition, agents vying against each other, the stronger tend to emerge and tend to pass on their genes more successfully. "Advancing" and "evolving" is the closest an evolutionary atheist will get to a telos, and impregnating dozens of females (as opposed to, say, one) is probably a successful strategy. Do you criticise dogs in heat for their willingness to jump on anything that moves that is approximately dog-sized?

But deep down you know that's not true, and that's why you express outrage over evil. Now, take the next logical step. Admit that atheism has nothing to offer, that you cannot be consistent if atheism is true, and that you have committed wrong things. Then ask yourself why you think you've done wrong, why you think you feel guilt. It's not b/c guilt is an evolved mechanism - for what purpose? Please! Rather, it was put there by God Himself to turn you to Him to ask Him for forgiveness and mercy! You can't be the ultimate foundation for morality, and you can't show me one unless it be God Himself. He commands you to repent, or you will be judged for your wrongdoing. But if you repent, He will forgive and give you eternal life, for free, b/c He has already paid the judgment that you so richly deserve. I pray you will do so.

Peace,
Rhology

magx01 said...

I am assuming that this is not your first, or even 5th, time posting that, and you most likely have had the flaws in it pointed out to you.

Am I incorrect in my presumption?

If you can honestly answer in the affirmative (that I am indeed incorrect), then I will post back with a point by point response, and I will point out the errors in that strawman filled and presumptuous attempt at proselytization.

magx01 said...

....Well?

Rhology said...

Take it as a compliment, I urge you, that the state of your eternal soul is of great importance to me.

I've posted things like that numerous times, but never found a good refutation. If you think you can do better than simply beg the question in favor of naturalism, go for it.

magx01 said...

I have typed up a reply to you, but it is 10 times th echaracter limit. Would you prefer me to post it in 10 comments, or just post it on my blog and link you to it?

I spent over an hour on it, so I would appreciate it if you read it, and took the time to respond in kind. How it is posted will be left up to you.

One cohesice blog entry, or 10 or so consecutive comments here? Up to you.

Thanks,

magx01.

Rhology said...

Much better to make it a blogpost and link to it, I think. Thanks!

magx01 said...

Alright, I am in the process of doing so. You will see a link here in the next 3-4 mins.

Assuming there is one, your response can be posted in my comment section, of course, but if you do it here, please link me in my comment section.

Tx.

I'll be back ina couple of minutes.

Rhology said...

Oh, just occurred to me - if you want to email it to me, I'll post it on this blog unedited and then respond to it later.

Would you prefer it that way?

Rhology said...

Oh, never mind - that'll work fine.

Please do allow some time to respond to it. I'll let you know when I do.

magx01 said...

^Sorry, did not catch your above comments.

magx01 said...

There seems to be some sort of posting error happening here. Let me try this again. I

apologize in advance if you get a bunch of duplicates.

Here's the link:

http://magx01.blogspot.com/2010/09/response-to-christian-apologist.html

I apologize for the length.....I just sort of got caught up in it, as I encounter these

sorts of sentiments quite often and I get a bit worked up....

Also, and this is not me blowing smoke up your butt, I think you're worth the effort.

What I mean by that is many times, people in your position drive me to just exit the

conversation, sometimes while hurling insults their way, because they are so dishonest

and it drives me nuts.

That OT issue is usually not tackled as directly and as honestly as you answered it. I

might dislike your response, but I respect it. You had the courage of your convictions

and responded with how you felt/thought, as opposed to trying to be cute/dodge it, etc.

I respect that.

So, even though we disagree on basic principles, we can still have productive

conversation(s) as long as both parties remain open and honest (such as you did, and

such as I did as you will see where I admit to not being too certain on an

idea/concept/point).

....See? I'm long winded at times. Depends on who I am dealing with, too, of course. If

you want to get rid of me, just starting lying or dodging things lol.

I don't expect a response right away of course, and of course you're not obligated to

respond at all, but I really hope you do, whether it's to disagree or tell me you've

deconverted ;) So far you have shown yourself to be better than many of the others with

whom I have dealings online, and so I allowed myself to let the post sweep me away,

because I don't have you pegged for the type who will disrespect my efforts by dodging,

ignoring, lying, etc.

Peace.

P.S. I don't know what your experiences are with atheists in general, but don't let the

vitriol, rage, immaturity, often rudeness, etc often seen online paint us all with the

same brush in yuor eyes.

There are a lot of good people on our "side." I consider myself one (although if you

happen to see some certain blog entries of mine you may think otherwise....sometimes I

rant and my rants can be quite crass when I am worked up). I'm just saying this so you

don't think that because my response was forceful, I have a default dislike of you due

to your religious affiliation.

That's simply not true, despite what some people gather from discussions they have with

me and/or the content of my blogs/videos/forum posts etc.

I'm just honest with my feelings, and I don't hold back on my thoughts. I was also a bit

insulted by a few of your insinuations regarding my morality. I hear those sorts of

sentiments a lot and I wonder how, and even if, you guys really, truly believe what you

say.


Reagrdless, there seems to be this idea out there that atheists hate theists, and I want

to say that I do not hate all theists. That's absurd. I might be a strong atheist with

antitheistic views as well, but I hate the religion, NOT the religious (hate the sin not

the sinner....LOL). I married a Catholic woman (she's no longer a believer (not my

doing!) but she was for the first 8-9 years I was with her) and I have religious

friends.

Wow, more rambling.....Sorry. I took some of my prescribed pain medication due to, well,

pain (!) which is a result of my 2 diseases (well, 3 if you count my atheism! ba dum

tish!) and I tend to get even more talkative/long winded when I take them.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

Rhology said...

Sorry about all the Blogger goofs. It does it to me too.

I've noticed that even if it gives an error msg after I Publish my comments, the comments still appear usually. The key is to Publish the comment and then go check on the actual blogpost in the comment section to see whether it posted.

Thanks again, I'll get back to you soon.

magx01 said...

HAve you ever received the one where it asks you whether or not you would like to continue to move away from the page or stay on it? The disappearing glitch was happening to me after receiving that particular annoying popup.

And no problem man.

The Thinker said...

"Not only can JeffPerado not explain why any act is wrong or right, he is guilty of imposing his moral timeframe on other cultures. Everyone can play that game."

So are you saying that morality is relative to people, places and time? Because if not you must agree that everything that was normative in the biblical days, should also be normative now.

Rhology said...

So are you saying that morality is relative to people, places and time?

If atheism is true, yes, and that's not all.
But not if Christianity is true, thankfully (and it is, thankfully).