Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

[Sawyer]

What? We are talking about how the Bible is a monstrous book written by evil savages who believe that making rape victims become the property of their attacker. Justice and the feelings of the victim have everything to do with it.

YOU are talking about how the Bible is a monstrous book written by evil savages etc. I am talking about how it is incorrect to say that raping someone was not a big deal according to the Bible.

I say again. 50 shekels of silver is a lot of fucking money. Think about it. How many rape convicts do you reckon could pay this humble fee? Few. What do you think would happen to them if they couldn't pay? My bet's on some kind of execution. The passage is clearly a get-out clause for the rich twat who rapes a peasant. You find laws like these across human history.

"Hey Caecilius, this chap raped a girl the other night."
"What does the law say?"
"The weight of her in silver for the father... but this guy has no cash."
"Better kill him then."

"Laws" like this exist, as I said, for the sole purpose of getting a bawdy prince out of trouble.

A woman is property in the Bible. The fine is unpleasant, the bride not so much. If you are the sort of person who rapes other people I imagine you would enjoy the thought of having what amounts to a slave that you can also fuck whenever you want.

To go down the road of trying to argue that the Bible created sexual inequality is annoying. The Bible didn't create these inequalities, they were around far, far, earlier.

You're insane.

AD HOMINEM!

Morals are morals. If something is or is not morally wrong it is always that way. Context may depend on factors, yes, but temporal factors are not one of them. If it is wrong for a society to force rape victims to marry their attackers then it is equally wrong to do it in 2010 CE or BCE.

"Context may depend on factors, yes, but temporal factors are not one of them." - Wut?

Shit gets real when people start waving words like "Right" and "Wrong" about. I'm not all that convinced by "morals" in general. Sure things like this can be nice or not nice, but can they be right or wrong?

No and you are just coming across like a Christian and/or rape apologist. The two are often one and the same. It's amazing how often people who claim high morals will say things along the lines of "Bitch was asking for it wearing that slutty dress."

I claim no high morals and I am no Christian.

[Kodos]

YOU are talking about how the Bible is a monstrous book written by evil savages etc. I am talking about how it is incorrect to say that raping someone was not a big deal according to the Bible.

When the penalty for rape is less than the penalty imposed upon a child for disobedience I don't think anyone but you would make this argument. It's not a big deal because disobedient children receive a harsher punishment than some rapists, according to the Biblical code of "justice."

I say again. 50 shekels of silver is a lot of fucking money. Think about it. How many rape convicts do you reckon could pay this humble fee? Few. What do you think would happen to them if they couldn't pay? My bet's on some kind of execution. The passage is clearly a get-out clause for the rich twat who rapes a peasant. You find laws like these across human history.

The possibility of paying a fine is still a less harsh sentence than instant death with no questions asked.

"Hey Caecilius, this chap raped a girl the other night."
"What does the law say?"
"The weight of her in silver for the father... but this guy has no cash."
"Better kill him then."

As opposed to
"Hey, Ezekial, Yeshua's children are rude and do not listen to him so we are helping stone them to death later."
"Awesome."

"Laws" like this exist, as I said, for the sole purpose of getting a bawdy prince out of trouble.

You know, I forgot to ask. I admit ignorance of the exact worth of a shekel, please show me what source you used to arrive at the conversion into modern money. I'm not necessarily saying you're lying, I'm genuinely curious.

To go down the road of trying to argue that the Bible created sexual inequality is annoying. The Bible didn't create these inequalities, they were around far, far, earlier.

Please show me when I have argued that the origin of patriarchy and misogyny is to be found in the Bible?

AD HOMINEM!

Not really. An ad hominem is when the premises are about the person and the conclusion about the argument. I'm saying your insane - my premises and conclusions are all about you. Rape in the Bible has less harsh penalties than fucking being a disobedient child. Also I asked and checked - the UK does jail rapists, usually without bail, and I understand that they may even receive life imprisonments. So you'll have to try harder if you want to compare this sort of barbarism to the practices of any civilized nation.

"Context may depend on factors, yes, but temporal factors are not one of them." - Wut?

If it is wrong to do X then it is always wrong to do X regardless of the time. If it is wrong for me to force a woman to have sex with me against her will then it is wrong for me to do this thing at 2 PM, 3 AM, 2010 CE, 2031 CE, and 2010 BCE. Whatever factors an ethical system does or does not consider to be valid in deciding the morality of an action, the time in which an action occurred cannot be one of them.

Shit gets real when people start waving words like "Right" and "Wrong" about. I'm not all that convinced by "morals" in general. Sure things like this can be nice or not nice, but can they be right or wrong?

Lucky for you the discussion at hand has only two very simple moral questions. I'd like you to answer them.
1. Is rape morally wrong?
2. Is it morally wrong to force a rape victim to marry her attacker.

[Sawyer]

Wait. Where are you getting the child-stoning thing from? Are you purposefully trying to be argumentative or are you just completely misunderstanding my point?

When the penalty for rape is less than the penalty imposed upon a child for disobedience I don't think anyone but you would make this argument. It's not a big deal because disobedient children receive a harsher punishment than some rapists, according to the Biblical code of "justice."

We're talking about this on a relative scale here. Yes, I am not saying that there have never existed harsher punishments than those for the Biblical way of dealing with rape. I never said that. I am saying that all things considered, the Biblical way for dealing with rape can not be considered "not a big deal."

The possibility of paying a fine is still a less harsh sentence than instant death with no questions asked.

Yes. "Give me $10,000,000 and a golden toilet or die" is an infinitely better option than "die."

You know, I forgot to ask. I admit ignorance of the exact worth of a shekel, please show me what source you used to arrive at the conversion into modern money. I'm not necessarily saying you're lying, I'm genuinely curious.

I admit. Guesswork mainly. A Silver Shekel is just a silver coin. In terms of nowadays silver, hardly anything. Maybe a couple of quid. In terms of thenadays silver, alot more. I don't really think it was a simple currency either. People were taking denarii and all sorts. Taking into account the change in living standards, the massive inequality of wealth etc. I don't think it's too far a jump to reckon that it was unpayable by most.

Please show me when I have argued that the origin of patriarchy and misogyny is to be found in the Bible?

Alas, I cannot. I have all too often heard the statement, my apprehension got the better of me.

Not really. An ad hominem is when the premises are about the person and the conclusion about the argument. I'm saying your insane - my premises and conclusions are all about you. Rape in the Bible has less harsh penalties than fucking being a disobedient child. Also I asked and checked - the UK does jail rapists, usually without bail, and I understand that they may even receive life imprisonments. So you'll have to try harder if you want to compare this sort of barbarism to the practices of any civilized nation.

First of all, provide some hard evidence for your "check."

Fine. Not an ad hominem. Simply unnecessary gruffness. And what? Life imprisonment for rape? In the UK? No. Simply no. Life imprisonment for murder and high treason, nothing else. Obviously there are exceptions...

The official line of the UK government on rape is this "Rape is so serious that a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest."

Such is our legal system. In reality, this means that 1,000,001 different things happen. Mainly fines, short sentences and/or rehabilitation for first timers.

If it is wrong to do X then it is always wrong to do X regardless of the time. If it is wrong for me to force a woman to have sex with me against her will then it is wrong for me to do this thing at 2 PM, 3 AM, 2010 CE, 2031 CE, and 2010 BCE. Whatever factors an ethical system does or does not consider to be valid in deciding the morality of an action, the time in which an action occurred cannot be one of them.

Ergh. Rights and Wrongs. I put it to you that it is never wrong to do anything. Right and Wrong are human constructs, not physical laws.

Lucky for you the discussion at hand has only two very simple moral questions. I'd like you to answer them.
1. Is rape morally wrong?
2. Is it morally wrong to force a rape victim to marry her attacker.

I will say this. Rape is nasty. Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is nasty. From the best of my reasoning, these things are bad. But are they WRONG? That ain't something I can say.

But what do you intend to prove by those questions anyway? They are entirely unrelated to what I originally brought up. I don't even know what we're yelling about!

[Kodos]

Beside the point. You're saying that back in bible-justice-day getting raped sucked for the victim, but "wasn't a big deal" for the actual rapist.

I'm saying that the Bible - and by extent the fictional character of the Judeo-Christian God - do not consider rape to be a big deal.

I agree with the first part, obviously. The second part is where I disagree. It certainly WAS a big deal for the actual rapist - even to the extent of being more of a punishment than a £25,000 fine, and counselling.

You cannot make the argument that rape is a big deal when a society punishes it less harshly than it punishes a disobedient child. Your argument is wrong. The same Bible that says rapists should sometimes marry their victims and pay a fine is the same Bible that says disobediant children should be stoned to death. Adulteresses too. I don't think you can say rape is a big deal to a culture when that same culture punishes it less harshly than it punishes adultery and childish disobedience.

For society, which is worse? Bible-time. Obviously. But was it "not a big deal" in Bible-time? No. It was a terrible deal for both rapist and rapee.

Not really. See above. A rapist would only be put to death if his victim was betrothed. Otherwise it was a fine and a marriage. An adulteress or a disobedient child - according to the Biblical penal code - was always punished with death.

But this argument feels off-topic and pointless. I think you see where I'm coming from.

Not really.

Wait. Where are you getting the child-stoning thing from? Are you purposefully trying to be argumentative or are you just completely misunderstanding my point?

Deuteronomy 21:18.

We're talking about this on a relative scale here. Yes, I am not saying that there have never existed harsher punishments than those for the Biblical way of dealing with rape. I never said that. I am saying that all things considered, the Biblical way for dealing with rape can not be considered "not a big deal."

I disagree. The punishments for most other crimes is death. The punishment for rape is death but only in some situations, other times it's just a hefty fine and a marriage. Clearly when a society punishes something less harshly than other things it probably considers that thing less horrible than those other things. When you consider how large the list of crimes with harsher penalties than rape is in the Bible, then it becomes clear that the authors did not consider rape to be that big of a deal.

Yes. "Give me $10,000,000 and a golden toilet or die" is an infinitely better option than "die."

Yes.

I admit. Guesswork mainly. A Silver Shekel is just a silver coin. In terms of nowadays silver, hardly anything. Maybe a couple of quid. In terms of thenadays silver, alot more. I don't really think it was a simple currency either. People were taking denarii and all sorts. Taking into account the change in living standards, the massive inequality of wealth etc. I don't think it's too far a jump to reckon that it was unpayable by most.

A quick google check gave me a unreliable but plausible sounding answer of 200 days worth of labor. It's entirely reasonable to assume that if a rapist was unable to pay the fine that, rather then being executed, he would probably be put to work at the victim's household until he had paid his debt. This sounds more plausible given other precedents in the Bible than simply executing the debtor.

First of all, provide some hard evidence for your "check."

Delphinus and Sean, two UK citizens.
Fine. Not an ad hominem. Simply unnecessary gruffness. And what? Life imprisonment for rape? In the UK? No. Simply no. Life imprisonment for murder and high treason, nothing else. Obviously there are exceptions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in...h_law#Sentence

The official line of the UK government on rape is this "Rape is so serious that a prosecution is almost certainly required in the public interest."

Such is our legal system. In reality, this means that 1,000,001 different things happen. Mainly fines, short sentences and/or rehabilitation for first timers.

Doesn't matter much. I'd argue you could not even punish rapists except by verbal reprimand and you'd still be less barbaric than marrying the woman to the offender.

Ergh. Rights and Wrongs. I put it to you that it is never wrong to do anything. Right and Wrong are human constructs, not physical laws.

Yes. I agree. That does not absolve you from answering the question. Morals go away when we stop believing in them, yes. But you still have opinions. Do you consider rape wrong? Do you consider it wrong to marry a rape victim to her attacker? Stop avoiding the questions and answer them.

I will say this. Rape is nasty. Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is nasty. From the best of my reasoning, these things are bad. But are they WRONG? That ain't something I can say.

Yes it is. Right and wrong are value judgments. As a sapient being you are qualified to make value judgments. Do you judge those two actions right or wrong.

But what do you intend to prove by those questions anyway? They are entirely unrelated to what I originally brought up. I don't even know what we're yelling about!

You are coming across like a rape apologist. I am offering you a quick out. You are refusing to participate in that out and in doing so make the assumption that you are a rape apologist seem more and more likely. You are digging a hole for yourself.

[Delphinus]

Ergh. Rights and Wrongs. I put it to you that it is never wrong to do anything. Right and Wrong are human constructs, not physical laws.

I agree, but not being a raving nihilist I'll offer the following argument:

Right and wrong are merely words for actions that are approved of or disapproved of correspondingly by the moral system under which they are described. The moral system we are following when we talk about rape being wrong because it causes significant trauma to the victim is simply that of empathy. If you can empathise with a rape victim, then you can understand why a moral system based on empathy would disapprove of rape: it's emotionally destructive, immensely ego-shattering, and can cause the victim to hate their own body in some cases. Unless you would will those experiences on others and claim they're enjoyable, it's your duty as a follower of the moral system of empathy to attempt to prevent rape through any means that are justified by the ends. Of course, one way to prevent rape ever occurring is to destroy the human race, but the means, in this case, will cause more emotional distress than what you wish to eliminate.

If you're a sociopath, however, the moral system of empathy probably doesn't mean much to you, so sociopaths should feel free to label rape as right.

[Kodos]

Exactly. I acknowledge there is no universal law that proclaims rape to be wrong (the prevalence of it even in other animals is evidence enough of this) I do, however, consider it to be a vile act that is completely unacceptable by my moral system. Right and wrong are value judgments like opinions. If someone asks you what you want for breakfast you do not say "Well pancakes and waffles are basically questions of taste and I am unqualified to make judgments so I'll just starve."

Of course that's a bad example since pancakes are objectively better than waffles.

[Sawyer]

Delphinus and Sean, two UK citizens.

I would have been more impressed if you gave me reference to two stuffed monkeys. But seriously. Really? Reaaaally?

Well Bill, Ted, and Harry (THREE UK citizens) say I'm right. This is hardly hard evidence.

RE: The Wiki Link. All this means is a rapist can be convicted for life. It doesn't make it the norm. Again, look at the official sentencing manual (which the wiki itself links) All of this stuff is just done on convention.

Stop avoiding the questions and answer them.

I already have. I say that rape is a bad thing, that shouldn't be carried out. It's logically wrong and unfair. I also say that it is NOT morally wrong. I maintain that morals should be irrelevant. I find that after googling "discordianism", which you were chatting about earlier in the thread , I am provided with a more poetic version of what I'm trying to say.

"The Aneristic Principle is that of apparent order; the Eristic Principle is that of apparent disorder. Both order and disorder are man made concepts and are artificial divisions of pure chaos, which is a level deeper than is the level of distinction making.
With our concept-making apparatus called "the brain" we look at reality through the ideas-about-reality which our cultures give us.
The ideas-about-reality are mistakenly labeled "reality" and unenlightened people are forever perplexed by the fact that other people, especially other cultures, see "reality" differently.
It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept.
We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid. That is the Aneristic Principle.
Western philosophy is traditionally concerned with contrasting one grid with another grid, and amending grids in hopes of finding a perfect one that will account for all reality and will, hence, (say unenlightened westerners) be True. This is illusory; it is what we Erisians call the Aneristic Illusion. Some grids can be more useful than others, some more beautiful than others, some more pleasant than others, etc., but none can be more True than any other.
Disorder is simply unrelated information viewed through some particular grid. But, like "relation", no-relation is a concept. Male, like female, is an idea about sex. To say that male-ness is "absence of female-ness", or vice versa, is a matter of definition and metaphysically arbitrary. The artificial concept of no-relation is the Eristic Principle.
The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion.
The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered.
Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that."

Weird shit.

Yes it is. Right and wrong are value judgments. As a sapient being you are qualified to make value judgments.

For myself yes. Not on a universal scale.

You are coming across like a rape apologist. I am offering you a quick out. You are refusing to participate in that out and in doing so make the assumption that you are a rape apologist seem more and more likely. You are digging a hole for yourself.

Clearly. It would be entirely reasonable and intelligent of you to label me a "rape apologist" on the basis of my last few posts. I make the claim that you are breaking clause 2; subsection II of the thread rules, which, you yourself wrote.

Anyway. I really do feel we have worn this "topic" into the ground. Unless you feel differently, time for a change of pace?

EDIT:
Yeah. The key word you use is MY. You cannot universally claim that pancakes are better than waffles. Although again, bad example as pancakes are objectively better. But you get my drift.

[Superdooperphailmachine]

On a serious note Belgian waffles are the shit. There shape allows for them to hold the topping in it's little squares and so it is possible to flavour it in sections, if you did this with a pancake the toppings would spill over each other causing a mess.

Also, if found guilty they generally do get the prison sentence. Unless the judge is some kind of dick in which case he does not deserve his job.

[Delphinus]

Well Bill, Ted, and Harry (THREE UK citizens) say I'm right. This is hardly hard evidence.

Hey, I think I know the norm in my own country.

I already have. I say that rape is a bad thing, that shouldn't be carried out. It's logically wrong and unfair. I also say that it is NOT morally wrong. I maintain that morals should be irrelevant. I find that after googling "discordianism", which you were chatting about earlier in the thread , I am provided with a more poetic version of what I'm trying to say.

1) When our morals are based on the following form:
DESIRED GOAL (Happiness, hedonism; freedom, liberalism; individual power, social Darwinism)
MEANS TO OBTAIN GOAL (If useful, 'good'; if useless, 'bad')
The difference between 'good' and 'evil' acts is purely logical. If the action will further your aims, do it; if not, don't. When we base a system on empathy, we are basing it, albeit indirectly, on a form of rational altruism, although it could more cynically be interpreted as a form of egoistic hedonism (the pain of others makes me feel unhappy: being unhappy is something I don't enjoy: I will attempt to prevent the pain of others). That is to say, logically wrong and morally wrong are synonymous in this case.

2) You fail at interpreting Discordianism. Read Principia Discordia to see the fnords in moral argument, not to destroy fnord! the whole basis of it.

Yeah. The key word you use is MY. You cannot universally claim that pancakes are better than waffles. Although again, bad example as pancakes are objectively better. But you get my drift.

Under a particular moral system, provided we obey the rules of logic, we should always reach the same conclusion regarding pancakes. Thus the argument is not "Pancakes are always better than waffles." but "Under the pancakist moral system, pancakes are always better than waffles."

[Fenn]

^Oh my God it ends there? Total cliffhanger.

Well this is leading right into what I was going to ask (and some people already answered it): If no God exists, where do morals come from?