This post is extremely low quality.

>>18607874
Yes I should. On the contrary, under your view, rape isn't inherently wrong, because if god commanded you to rape, you would not only be morally right but you would have a moral obligation to do so.

>>18607874
Another compelling argument from the religifag camp.

>>18607881

>Yes I should.

NO, YOU SHOULD NOT, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ETHICAL PRINCIPLE ON WHICH TO BASE THE INVIOLABILITY OF YOUR BODY, AND OF YOUR WILL.


>On the contrary, under your view, rape isn't inherently wrong [...]

WRONG.

RAPE IS A VIOLATION OF SOMEONE'S WILL, AND OF SOMEONE'S BODY; RAPE IS EVIL.

THE BODY IS THE TEMPLE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT; TO THE GODLESS, THE BODY IS MERE ANIMATED FLESH.


> [...] because if god commanded you to rape, you would not only be morally right but you would have a moral obligation to do so.

I. CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE IS RATIONAL, NOT IRRATIONAL: WE DO NOT OBEY BLINDLY, BUT WITH DISCERNMENT.

II. GOD WOULD NEVER COMMAND ANYONE TO RAPE SOMEONE; IF YOU RECEIVE THAT COMMAND, IT IS NOT GOD SPEAKING TO YOU.

>>18607874
Suppose God does exist. Then, as long as you're being raped, it's happening with God's tacit approval. If it weren't, he could stop it any time, but he doesn't.

>>18607888
you don't think space is real:)

>>18607874
You're right, I don't have any moral qualms about being raped. I still don't want to be raped though, because it is painful for me I do not like pain. Hope that clears things up.

>>18607929
I came to post this. Keep your dick away from my ass OP or I'll fuck you up.

>>18607929


WHY SHOULD THE POTENTIAL RAPIST CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT OR WOULD NOT WANT?

WHAT HE WOULD WANT IS TO RAPE YOU, AND THERE WOULD BE NO ETHICAL SET OF PRINCIPLES NOT TO RAPE YOU, AND NO SANE MORALITY TO STOP HIM.

>>18607953
>WHY SHOULD THE POTENTIAL RAPIST CARE ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD WANT OR WOULD NOT WANT?
He shouldn't. All he should care about are the actual material consequences, such as me killing him, or him going to prison after raping me.

>>18607976


I. THE PROBLEM OF THE DISCUSSION IS ETHICOMORAL, NOT LEGAL, NOR THE FACT OF WHETHER YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF.

II. SOMEONE WHO IS WILING TO COMMIT RAPE, EITHER, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHETHER RAPE IS LEGAL, OR WHETHER THE VICTIM CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES, OR HE TAKES THOSE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT, AND TAKES PROPER PRECAUTIONS.

>>18607881
Why? Half the people involved are enjoying it.

>>18607929
What if they use lube?

>>18607888
>RAPE IS A VIOLATION OF SOMEONE'S WILL, AND OF SOMEONE'S BODY; RAPE IS EVIL.

And for the same reason its vile from the atheist perspective as well, you dont need a God to tell you that

>CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE IS RATIONAL, NOT IRRATIONAL: WE DO NOT OBEY BLINDLY, BUT WITH DISCERNMENT.

Killing your own son just because God commanded you to isnt very rational is it

>>18608114

>And for the same reason its vile from the atheist perspective as well [...] [SIC]

BASED ON WHAT?


>Killing your own son just because God commanded you to isnt very rational is it [SIC]

WHO KILLED HIS OWN SON BECAUSE GOD COMMANDED HIM TO DO IT?

>>18607888
>CHRISTIAN OBEDIENCE IS RATIONAL, NOT IRRATIONAL: WE DO NOT OBEY BLINDLY, BUT WITH DISCERNMENT
Do you really expect us to believe that stoning a guy to death for gathering sticks is "rational" in any sense of the word?

>>18608119
>Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
>These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
>Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.”
Your response, christcuck? You literally don't have any morals aside from "god told me". You can't even claim murder and rape is le bad because clearly it is le good if god says so

>>18607982
>THE PROBLEM OF THE DISCUSSION IS ETHICOMORAL, NOT LEGAL, NOR THE FACT OF WHETHER YOU CAN DEFEND YOURSELF.
The person you're replying to is clearly arguing that there are no oughts and as such is replying to your answer from that position.
>SOMEONE WHO IS WILING TO COMMIT RAPE, EITHER, DOES NOT CARE ABOUT WHETHER RAPE IS LEGAL, OR WHETHER THE VICTIM CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES, OR HE TAKES THOSE FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT, AND TAKES PROPER PRECAUTIONS.
Those things align with caring about consequences. I.e. you care about consequences so you take precautions to avoid them.

>>18608124


?

>>18608119
>BASED ON WHAT?
Based on rights of the individual, which in turn come from enlightenment atheists
>WHO KILLED HIS OWN SON BECAUSE GOD COMMANDED HIM TO DO IT?
Abraham was seconds from it and only didnt do it after God commanded him not too. His willingness to do so still shows how you would follow every command of your God no matter how vile it is

>>18608127

>The person you're replying to is clearly arguing that there are no oughts and as such is replying to your answer from that position.

NO; HE IS BASING HIS ARGUEMENT ON AN «OUGHT» PRESUPPOSITION THAT IS LEGAL AND ANIMAL, WHEN THE PROBLEM BEING DISCUSSED IS ETHICOMORAL.


>Those things align with caring about consequences. I.e. you care about consequences so you take precautions to avoid them.

NOT ETHICOMORAL CONSEQUENCES.

THE RAPIST RAPES WITHOUT CONCERNING HIMSELF WITH WHETHER RAPE IS GOOD, OR EVIL; HE RAPES, BECAUSE HE FEELS COMPELLED TO DO IT BY A DISORDERED ANIMAL IMPULSE, AND BY A PERVERTED WILL.

IN A GODLESS SOCIETY, THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT ALLOWING RAPE, BECAUSE ATHEISTS REJECT GOD, AND ALL THE ETHICOMORAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY HIM.

File: 1777281740717.png (283 KB, 1080x953)

283 KB PNG

>>18608138
>catholics not reading the bible
Living up to the stereotype

>>18608145

>Based on rights of the individual, which in turn come from enlightenment atheists

ON WHAT ARE THOSE «RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL» BASED?


>Abraham was seconds from it and only didnt do it after God commanded him not too. His willingness to do so still shows how you would follow every command of your God no matter how vile it is

I. ABRAHAM WAS NOT CHRISTIAN.

II. GOD THE FATHER WAS TRYING TO MAKE A «POINT»: THAT RITUAL BLOOD SACRIFICES —NORMAL AT THE TIME, EVERYWHERE— WERE NOT NECESSARY; THAT HE, GOD, DID NOT DEMAND HUMAN SACRIFICES FROM ANYONE, UNLIKE PAGAN DEITIES.

>>18608156
Are you daft? Of course he's not proposing ethicomoral shit, he's arguing no such shit actually exists. That's the whole point.
>IN A GODLESS SOCIETY, THERE CAN BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT ALLOWING RAPE
You're deliberately phrasing this in a disingenuous way. What you want to say is "there can be no ethicomoral justification" but you don't want to say it outright because you know then you'd get btfo.

>>18608159


AH, YES, THE CHRISTIANS FROM THE BOOK OF EXODUS...

>>18608173

>Are you daft? Of course he's not proposing ethicomoral shit, he's arguing no such shit actually exists. That's the whole point.

YES... WHICH IS WHY HE IS WRONG.


>You're deliberately phrasing this in a disingenuous way. What you want to say is "there can be no ethicomoral justification" but you don't want to say it outright because you know then you'd get btfo.

JUSTIFICATION IS ETHICOMORAL; «ETHICOMORAL JUSTIFICATION» IS A PLEONASM.

>>18608179
>YES... WHICH IS WHY HE IS WRONG.
You being upset about it doesn't make him wrong.
>JUSTIFICATION IS ETHICOMORAL; «ETHICOMORAL JUSTIFICATION» IS A PLEONASM.
If that's your definition, then you're not saying anything interesting. You're just crying that if god doesn't exist, lawmakers aren't acting in accordance with god's will when they outlaw rape.
Who gives a shit?

>>18608171
You dont need a God to tell you that humans, with our social nature and historical development, are different from animals in our morals only because of a couple of books. Individual rights are derived from our life in society.
>I. ABRAHAM WAS NOT CHRISTIAN.
He worshipped the christian god, and followed the practices that were in place for worshippers of the same israelite god you worship.

>GOD THE FATHER WAS TRYING TO MAKE A «POINT»: THAT RITUAL BLOOD SACRIFICES —NORMAL AT THE TIME, EVERYWHERE— WERE NOT NECESSARY; THAT HE, GOD, DID NOT DEMAND HUMAN SACRIFICES FROM ANYONE, UNLIKE PAGAN DEITIES.

Doesnt change a thing that christians would commit any crime, no matter how vile if their god told them to.

>>18608191

>You dont need a God to tell you that humans, with our social nature and historical development, are different from animals in our morals only because of a couple of books. Individual rights are derived from our life in society.

I. WHAT IS GOOD IS THAT WHICH CONDUCIVE TO GOD; THE WORD OF GOD IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS GOOD, OR EVIL.

II. CIVILITY IS BASED ON ETHICAL PRINCIPLES, AND ON MORAL NORMS, NOT CONVERSELY


>He worshipped the christian god [...] [SIC]

WHAT OTHER GOD IS THERE?


>[...] and followed the practices that were in place for worshippers of the same israelite god you worship. [SIC]

HE WORSHIPPED GOD THE FATHER; HE NEVER KNEW GOD THE SON: THERE WERE NO CHRISTIANS BEFORE CHRIST.

>>18608191

>Doesnt change a thing that christians would commit any crime, no matter how vile if their god told them to.


ATHEISTIC FANTASY.

>>18608187


YOUR RESPONSES HAVE DETERIORATED INTO NON SEQVITVR GIBBERISH.

LEARN HOW TO ARGUE.

>>18608227
No, I'm pointing out what every moral argument for the existence of god devolves into.
You can't prove objective morals exist, you're just saying that if they didn't exist, you would be upset. That's why you get oneshot by exchanges like:
>You: If objective morals don't exist, lawmakers aren't basing their decisions on objective morals.
>Me: Ok, and?
>You: QQ

>>18608224
How is it an atheistic fantasy when its in your own fucking book you moron. Not to mention all the other vile shit in the old testament before god suddenly changed his mind about stoning later on

>>18608234


IT SEEMS THAT YOU IGNORE WHAT MORALS ARE.

MORALS ARE THE PREVAILING NORMAL CUSTOMS; MORALS ARE BASED ON A SHARED ETHICS, OR ON A LACK THEREOF.

MORALS ARE EVIL, IF THERE ARE NO ETHICS; MORALS ARE GOOD ONLY IF THERE ARE ETHICS.

MORALS ARE ACTUALLY OBJECTIVE; ETHICS ARE VIRTUALLY OBJECTIVE: MORALS ARE THE ACTUALIZATION OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.

ALL THAT IS OBJECTIVE CAN BE PROVED; THE FACT THAT SOME DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH, OR FAIL TO EXPLAIN IT, DOES NOT ENTAIL THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY.

>>18608246


OK, GODLESS.

>>18608247
You're rambling because you know you can't prove the existence of objective morals. All your arguments will always devolve to you simply being upset about the proposition that objective morals do not exist.
Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't and that's why you won't even try. Your next post will prove this.

>>18608257


I. HOW AM I RAMBLING, ACCORDING TO YOU?

II. WHY DO YOU KEEP PRESUMING THAT I AM «UPSET»?

III. HOW ARE MORALS «SUBJECTIVE», ACCORDING TO YOU?

IV. YOUR FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND AN ARGUMENT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU «WON THE DISCUSSION»; IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE DUMB.

>>18608262
See, you failed to prove that objective morals exist just as I predicted. You didn't even try!
You won't even try in your next post either because you know you can't.

>>18608263
He already told you
>MORALS ARE THE PREVAILING NORMAL CUSTOMS
How is that not objective? Can you even read?

>>18607874
eChristians in charge of not thinking about rape for 30 seconds.

Regular reminder that the central plank of Christianity is that you can rape every single hole that crosses your path until your cock rots off and so long as you repent 10 seconds before you die you still go to heaven and that's a GOOD thing.

You will now screech "that wasn't real repentance!!!" with the arrogance to think you know what's in another mans heart.

>>18608274
>objective morals = people in a certain place and time have a certain set of customs
So the entire argument devolves into him coming up with a bunch of idiosyncratic definitions that fail to lead to any actual point lmao. Good one.

>>18608278
That's what morals are, bro

>>18608277
Oh fuck I also forgot. Following the parable of the Prodigal Son, a guy who spends his entire life raping every woman that crosses his path and repents on this AIDS and STI riddled deathbed is actually better and more holy than that monk who lived on Mt Athos his entire life and never laid eyes on a woman.

This is what Christians actually believe. They'll deny it and therefore themselves and their god for internet coolboy points.

>>18608281
>I don't actually have anything interesting to say so I'll just try to steer the discussion into arguing that the phrase "objective morals" is generally taken to mean "people in a certain place and time have a certain set of customs" within the field of philosophy
lol

>>18608285
Go read a fucking book instead of discussing things you know nothing about

>>18608277
>>18608283
Mindbroken

>>18608288
Ok, give me the title of the book which claims that "objective morals" refers to people in a certain place and time having a certain set of customs.

>>18608290
See what I mean about them denying themselves to get a internet goodboy point?

>>18608221
Then rape isn't inherently wrong under your worldview.

>>18607888
How do I decide which "ETHICAL PRINCIPLES" on which to base the inviolability of my body?

>>18607874
God's existence or nonexistence adds nothing to the morality of being raped.
You have to provide an argument otherwise. Right now it's on the level of me asserting that rape can't be bad if unicorns don't exist.

There are plenty of good arguments for God. Why are theists obsessed with the absolute dumbest one? I genuinely don't understand why low iq normies like the moral argument so much when it's considered laughable by philosophers of religion.

>>18607888
>II. GOD WOULD NEVER COMMAND ANYONE TO RAPE SOMEONE; IF YOU RECEIVE THAT COMMAND, IT IS NOT GOD SPEAKING TO YOU.
your imagined god commands you to murder people who don't agree with you

a deity does not exist for morals, ethics, and aesthetics to be relevant, and me not wanting to be raped is less immediately about morals and more immediately about bodily autonomy and physical security. just because when I die I'll feel nothing and won't exist ever again doesn't mean I'm eager to die or that I don't care about experiencing suffering while I'm alive. quite the opposite, in fact.

>>18607874
God means good in a sense. What would your god command? Would it throw you in prison? Hurt your empath emotion?

>>18607881
Not all theists believe in divine command theory. You could ground morality in God's nature not will for example. The will merely reflects his nature and his speech conveys to us what is objectively right or wrong via divine revelation.
>Yes I should
Why? Because you don't want to says nothing about the "should"

>>18608114
>Killing your own son just because God commanded you to isnt very rational is it
it was just a prank bro look the camera's right there

>>18610511
That's really just defining "good" as "godlike". Might as well define it as "doglike" lol.

Someone who believes God exist and knows how he is and still is hateful and cruel will be judged way harsher than an atheist.

>>18610522
Not really because there are certain actions for example that are only good for God but not creation. You still haven't answered why btw

>>18610595
>there are certain actions for example that are only good for God
What do you mean by "good" here?
>You still haven't answered why btw
You didn't ask me. My previous post was my first interaction with you.

>>18607885
raped post

>>18610701
>raped
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

>>18610652
For example in a human being, pride is a destructive moral vice which is essentially a lie (so it's evil) because humans are weak, dependent, and flawed. For God, pride is a praiseworthy and morally perfect attribute which is essentially truth (so it's good) because He truly is the ultimate, self-sufficient power.
>You didn't ask me
Okay understood, now I am asking you the same question

>>18610715
You're all over the place. First you say the good is grounded in god's nature, now you say a specific attribute of god is good because it's true. Make up your mind.
>Okay understood, now I am asking you the same question
I never made the claim that you were further quizzing the other guy about.

>>18610743
Truth being good is also grounded the same way. I was just showing you an instance where the human and divine application differs
>I never made the claim
Then how about you deal with OP's topic? You shouldn't have any moral qualms with being raped

>>18610843
>Truth being good is also grounded the same way.
Truth is good because it's true?
The fact that you can see how you're pivoting between several different definitions of the good is quite telling of your ability to discuss this topic.
>Then how about you deal with OP's topic? You shouldn't have any moral qualms with being raped
Already did. "Moral qualms" are an appeal without an actual referent because objective morality does not exist. With that in mind, I do not have any such moral qualms.
>inb4 then you'd let me rape you hehe
No, I'd bash your fucking head in lol.

>>18610882
>Truth is good because it's true?
No, truth is good because it is grounded in God's nature...
>No, I'd bash your fucking head in lol
Impossible, I am bigger and stronger than you. Also you just admitted you have no moral qualms with me raping you thus proving OP right. Thank you for conceding. Don't worry though you're safe because rape is objectively immoral

>>18610906
>No, truth is good because it is grounded in God's nature...
What do you mean by the word "good" in that sentence?
>Impossible, I am bigger and stronger than you.
You're a Mexican manlet.
>Also you just admitted you have no moral qualms with me raping you thus proving OP right.
I didn't "admit it", that's been my stance from the outset.
>Thank you for conceding.
Conceding what? Conceding that I agree with my own view? How does that even work lol.
>Don't worry though you're safe because rape is objectively immoral
Whether morality is objective or not has absolutely no bearing on anyone's safety.

>>18607874
God doesn't exist? I'm not getting raped. I'm doing the raping.

>>18610990
>What do you mean by the word "good" in that sentence?
Do you need a link to a dictionary?
>You're a Mexican manlet.
Evidence for this claim? Not that it matters since even one of those can overpower a twink with a voluptuous ass (You)
>that's been my stance from the outset
Yes we know that you have no moral problem with being raped, by me specifically
>Conceding what?
That you agree with the OP despite pretending and trying to dodge the implication all this time
>Whether morality is objective or not has absolutely no bearing on anyone's safety
Yes it does, moral people such as myself are way less likely to indulge in your evil homosexual fantasies. Objective morality is protecting your asshole right now (Leviticus 20:13)

>>18612034
>Do you need a link to a dictionary?
No, I need you to define your terms. That's standard practice in philosophy.
But yeah, I know you can't actually do that because your entire framework will crumble the moment you give that definition.
>Evidence for this claim?
You can't even 1/2/3/4 lol. Is snap your neck with one hand without breaking a sweat, Pedro.
>Yes we know that you have no moral problem with being raped, by me specifically
>That you agree with the OP despite pretending and trying to dodge the implication all this time
I literally never said otherwise, in fact I've been explicitly saying that I do not in fact have any such moral qualms.
>Yes it does, moral people such as myself are way less likely to indulge in your evil homosexual fantasies.
Objective morality, if it existed, couldn't ever prevent anyone from doing anything because it would be causally inert. Believing objective morality exists could prevent someone from doing something, but that's not the same thing as it actually existing. This mechanism is very often used to create goyslaves.
Btw the move you keep trying to do (and failing) is ironically the reverse of Hume's is-ought gap. Very funny but it doesn't work either - the existence of objective morality wouldn't be able to protect anyone from anything because an ought doesn't grant you an is any more than the other way around.

>>18612050
A dictionary can be used to define terms, did you not know?
>Is snap your neck with one hand without breaking a sweat
¡Simón con limón! So you ain't got no proof for your jale? But it’s cool, ése, I can be your Cholo Daddy. ¡Es una mamacita! You already tripped up right there when you typed that out, chavalita. That means you're shaking right now, loco. And/or you're just totally obsessed with Pedro Mustachito’s man meat, ¿qué no? In any case, this proves you'd be totally wiped out if I didn't hold back.
>I literally never said otherwise
You attempted to dodge the thread topic without being upfront from your first interaction about your stance. We know now that you have no moral qualms with BMC rearranging your guts. What is it that makes you so okay with it? Do you just like dark meat? Whatever the answer you were ashamed to bring it up earlier and tried your best not to provide a clear stance
>Believing objective morality exists could prevent someone from doing something
Meaning you have to thank objective morality for your ability to hold in your shit right now. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't have any possibility of knowing that it exists in any sense and I'd make you taste la verga as a consequence.

>>18612204
>A dictionary can be used to define terms, did you not know?
So you've given up on this point and refuse to define your terms because you realize your argument would immediately fall apart, gotcha.
>spicspeak
>doesn't even dispute that he can't 1/2/3/4
You're weak as shit lol.
>You attempted to dodge the thread topic
This literally never happened. Here's how the exchange went:
1)Some other guy said that he should have such moral qualms.
2)You asked him why.
3)I responded to another part of your comment.
4)You then asked me to answer the question you asked the other guy.
5)I told you it makes no sense for me to answer it because I'm not making the claim he is (i.e. that I should have these moral qualms).
6)You asked me how I deal with the thread topic then.
7)I told you that I deal with it by affirming that I have no such moral qualms.
>What is it that makes you so okay with it?
I never said I'm okay with it, in fact I literally told you I'd bash your head in if you tried. My subjective preference isn't objective morality and me wanting or not wanting something to happen is not a moral qualm.
>Meaning you have to thank objective morality for your ability to hold in your shit right now. If it didn't exist, I wouldn't have any possibility of knowing that it exists
It doesn't exist yet you're convinced that it does. Q.E.D.

>>18607874
>You then shouldn't have any moral qualms about being raped.
Why?

>christians demanding an ethical declaration for why I don’t want a cock forced in my ass

>>18610511
>Not all theists believe in divine command theory. You could ground morality in God's nature not will for example. The will merely reflects his nature and his speech conveys to us what is objectively right or wrong via divine revelation.
This is sort of dancing around the issue. If God commanded you to rape, obviously it is within his nature to do so, and you would be morally obligated to do it. Not saying you would do it, but you would be wrong to refuse. You can only really get around divine command theory if you think God can be wrong.

>>18612539
Nope, I am intending to point you to a dictionary so your silly postmodernist ass can jump from word to word as long as your little twinky heart desires
>You're weak as shit lol
I am not the one making typos while trying to sound like a power bottom lmao
>2)You asked him why.
>3)I responded to another part of your comment
And here is your problem. It's obviously the entire point of the thread but you refused to make your stance clear then and there. In fact I had to ask you specifically the question because you refused to just give a straight (gay) answer. Chupa mi verga puta
>I never said I'm okay with it
You're morally okay with it since you have no moral qualms, and you like to play coy that your sphincter isn't twitching at the thought of BMC, so you play hard to get. Para chuparte los dedos
>It doesn't exist yet you're convinced that it does
I don't need to be convinced of reality, it's just a brute fact

>>18612580
>If God commanded you to rape
That's a logical impossibility since it's against his nature. It's like saying God commands you to do things God would never command, or more simply implying God is not God

>>18612658
This is a wild dodge of the question. For starters, how could you, with your necessarily limited imagination presume to know what God would or wouldn't order you to do? In this particular hypothetical we don't even have to guess. God is totally fine with rape in places like Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31, and in 2 Samuel 16 he either orders or compels Absalom to rape David's wives. So we're back to where we started, under the Christian view, rape isn't inherently wrong.

>>18612650
>Nope, I am intending to point you to a dictionary
Ok, so you mean "very satisfactory, enjoyable, pleasant, or interesting" as per the Cambridge dictionary.
>I am not the one making typos while trying to sound like a power bottom lmao
You literally can't even 1/2/3/4 lol.
>And here is your problem. It's obviously the entire point of the thread but you refused to make your stance clear then and there.
Because it was irrelevant to the point I was making. You realized you're incapable of arguing your point so you switched to this stupid "every response in a thread must directly answer the question in the op" charade instead.
>You're morally okay with it
Wrong. To say you're morally okay with something is to take a moral stance. I'm not doing that because I don't believe moral oughts (or ought nots) are a coherent concept to begin with.
>I don't need to be convinced of reality, it's just a brute fact
Nice quipposting, but it won't let you escape the fact that people who believe in X act as if X exists even if it actually doesn't and they're mistaken about it.

>>18612711
>God is totally fine with rape in places like Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31, and in 2 Samuel 16 he either orders or compels Absalom to rape David's wives.
Run this in ChatGpt and see how incredibly stupid you are. It doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.

>>18612828
>"christians" now worship omnisssiah from temu
kek

>>18612828
>christian terrified to read the bible

>>18612831
>>18612902
>H-heh, I won't do it
Typical

>>18612921
>outsourcing your argument to a chatbot because you hate god's word
I accept your concession.

>>18612927
I'm outsourcing it:
>The claim confuses regulation, description, and judgment with moral approval.

>Deuteronomy 21 does not command rape. It restricts what an Israelite soldier may do with a captive woman: he cannot immediately treat her as sexual property; she receives time to mourn, must be taken as a wife rather than used casually, and, if the man rejects her, she must be freed—he may not sell or enslave her, because he has “humbled” her. These protections fall short of modern standards and arise within a brutal ancient-war context, but the passage restrains exploitation rather than celebrating it.

>Numbers 31 likewise never commands the soldiers to rape the surviving girls. It records their preservation as captives after a war of judgment. The fate of ancient captives is morally disturbing, but “they were spared” does not equal “God ordered their rape.” Reading sexual assault into the passage goes beyond what it actually says.

>In 2 Samuel 12, God predicts that David’s own household will bring public humiliation upon him because David secretly took Bathsheba and killed Uriah. In chapter 16, however, it is Ahithophel who advises Absalom to violate David’s concubines, and Absalom willingly does so. God’s foreknowledge and use of a wicked act as judgment do not mean God morally approved or irresistibly compelled it. Scripture repeatedly presents God as judging people through the freely chosen evil of other people while still holding those perpetrators guilty.

>Thus these passages may raise difficult questions about warfare, patriarchy, and divine judgment, but none establishes that God considers rape morally good.

Couldn't even get David right. Thank you, ChatGPT

>>18612937
This is really embarrassing for you btw
Deuteronomy 21
>10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.
Numbers 31
>17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
"It doesn't command you to rape, it just allows you to" fits into what I said, which is "God is totally fine with rape"
2 Samuel 12
>11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’
He doesn't "predict" it, he literally causes it
I appreciate you haven't read these verses before hence why you need to rely on a chatbot to argue for you but maybe you should give the bible a peak before opining on what God would and wouldn't order you to do.

>>18607874
>Christcuck would turn into the worst degenerate if not the threat of Satan sticking the iron poker up their asses.

>>18613037
>The insults do not strengthen the argument, and neither does collapsing three different claims into “God is fine with rape.”

>Deuteronomy 21 is morally difficult because the woman is a captive and therefore cannot meaningfully consent by modern standards. I would not pretend otherwise. But the text does not describe a soldier seizing and raping her immediately. It requires marriage, delays sexual access for a month, acknowledges her mourning, and forbids selling her afterward. That is regulation of an already brutal institution, not a declaration that sexual violence is good. The Bible itself distinguishes rape from lawful intercourse and condemns it in Deuteronomy 22:25–27.

>Numbers 31 is even harsher, but “keep alive for yourselves” does not explicitly mean “rape them.” The captives are later counted and distributed along with livestock and property. You may condemn that system as coercive slavery, but inserting an unstated command to rape is still an inference, not a quotation.

>And yes, 2 Samuel 12 uses active divine language: “I will take,” “I will give,” and “I will do.” So “predict” was too weak. But chapter 16 still identifies Ahithophel as the adviser and Absalom as the willing perpetrator. Biblical judgment regularly attributes events to God’s sovereign handing-over while also condemning the human agents who choose the evil—compare Assyria in Isaiah 10 or the crucifixion in Acts 2:23.

>The serious objection is that God judicially permits and incorporates horrific human acts within judgment. That is harder than “mere prediction.” But it is not the same proposition as “God regards rape as morally acceptable.”

That's what I'm just going to do. Use ChatGPT responses, because you can't be bothered to even fully study the things you want to claim to be an authority on. Keep going, if your arguments are concrete then this should be no problem.

As christcels increasingly outsource their thinking to fancy autocomplete, the iq gap between them and atheists will continue to grow.

>>18613048
They're the same arguments. "it doesn't say to rape them, but you're allowed to if you want to" for Deuteronomy and Numbers, and in 2 Samuel God literally takes credit for what's happening. Do you think he lied?
Also because you haven't read the Deuteronomy you should know that 22:25–27 only refers to raping married Israelite women. The very next verse details how if you rape an unmarried woman, she has to marry you after you pay her father a fine.
>>18613117
I thought standard apologetics were bad but this is a new low. Christians will do anything other than actually read the bible.

>>18613148
>You are right about two points my earlier reply softened: Deuteronomy 21 does not give the captive woman meaningful modern consent, and 2 Samuel 12 describes God as doing more than merely predicting the event. But your conclusion does not follow.

>“God tolerated or judicially used an evil” is not identical to “God is totally fine with it.” Jesus says Mosaic law could permit something because of human hardness while remaining contrary to God’s ideal (Matthew 19:8). Deuteronomy 21 works within war captivity. It blocks immediate sexual seizure, requires mourning and marriage, and forbids later sale. That remains coercive, but its direction is restraint, not praise.

>Numbers 31 is harsher: the girls become captives and spoils. Yet it never grants unrestricted sexual access. They are divided between soldiers and the congregation, with some assigned to priestly administration. Calling this horrific is fair; calling it an explicit rape license adds what the text never says.

>On Deuteronomy 22:28–29, you may be right that rape is intended; substantial scholarship reads it that way. But even then the offender is fined, denied divorce, and compelled to provide for the woman in a society where her prospects had been harmed. The remedy is patriarchal and unacceptable by modern standards, but regulation and punishment are not approval.

>And no, God did not lie in 2 Samuel 12. The text attributes the judgment to him while chapter 16 identifies Ahithophel’s counsel and Absalom’s chosen act as the means. Scripture likewise calls Assyria God’s rod and then condemns Assyria’s violent intention (Isaiah 10:5–15). Divine sovereignty over an act does not mean moral approval.

>The harder objection is that God tolerates and incorporates grievous coercion into judgment. That deserves a serious answer. “Therefore God approves rape” is still an overstatement.

You keep trying to apply your 21st century standards to a warfare society without the concept of divine accomodation.

>>18613156
I'm not doing anything of the sort lol, you are desperately trying to run away from the point raised initially which was that if God told you to rape someone it would be morally good to do so. You tried to dodge that by making the bizarre claim that God wouldn't tell you to do that, and when it was pointed out that according to the bible he has either condoned or ordered rape, you ran to a chatbot begging it to save you, presumably because you realize praying to God for help won't actually do anything. It's genuinely embarrassing, I feel like I'm bullying a child at this point.

>>18612743
>words can't have multiple meanings
Okay so we know you're a twinky little faggot, but now we can confirm you're a retarded one too.
>can't even
I am sorry I don't know the name of that anal sex technique >>>/fit/ for more man love
>Because it was irrelevant to the point I was making
I disagree. You're doing everything possible to hide the fact that you do not find gay rape objectively wrong.
>To say you're morally okay with something is to take a moral stance
Nah you can be perfectly neutral about the moral issue of gay rape and still qualify as simply being morally okay with it. I never said you found it righteous. And your delusional position on morals doesn't matter here either.
>people who believe in X act as if X exists even if it actually doesn't and they're mistaken about it
What utter nonsense, X can be replaced with "reality" here. If reality doesn't exist then what are the people in the question a part of? Just because you can string a bunch of words together doesn't mean it has any possible existence

>>18612711
>how could you, with your necessarily limited imagination presume to know what God would or wouldn't order you to do?
What you could call the nous and divine revelation informs us of his nature and what he finds abhorrent for himself and for us to do. I do not take the OT to be holy scripture btw

>>18613175
>You have shifted the point. “If God commanded rape, would it be right?” is a philosophical hypothetical. Your supposed biblical examples were meant to establish that God actually commanded rape, and they still do not.

>Deuteronomy 21 commands marriage regulations for a female captive. The arrangement is coercive and morally disturbing by modern standards, but the text never commands the soldier, “Rape her.” Numbers 31 commands that certain captives be spared; “keep alive for yourselves” is not a command granting sexual assault. You keep replacing the actual wording with your own conclusion.

>Second Samuel 12 is not God telling Absalom to rape anyone. God announces that David’s household will become the instrument of judgment. Second Samuel 16 then identifies Ahithophel as proposing the act and Absalom as committing it. Saying God sovereignly brought judgment through their wicked choices is not the same as saying he issued them a moral command to rape. Scripture uses the same pattern with Assyria: God calls it his instrument and then condemns its arrogant and violent intentions in Isaiah 10.

>Nor did I say God “lied.” The prophecy happened. Your error is treating “God says this event will occur through judgment” as interchangeable with “God gives the perpetrator a righteous command to commit it.”

>Christianity does not teach that an independently evil deity can arbitrarily rename rape “good.” It teaches that God’s commands express his good character. Therefore a claimed revelation commanding rape would be rejected as false, not obeyed merely because someone attached God’s name to it.

>So the hypothetical remains hypothetical, while the passages you cited still contain no divine command addressed to anyone saying, “Rape this person.”

Wow, your arguments just keep getting batted away

>>18613292
So when Jesus cites and quotes the Old Testament throughout the New Testament was he just wrong?
>>18613300
>still running
I accept your concession

>>18613283
>words can't have multiple meanings
Funny that you make that response after you've repeatedly refused to clarify which definition you're using.
The moral argument rests on claiming that likes, dislikes, wants, things you want to achieve or prevent and other things of this sort do not constitute moral oughts and therefore do not give the atheist access to moral claims. Instead, the proponent of the argument defines moral oughts as being (or being grounded by) God's commands, reflections of God's nature etc. If one is to accept the relevant premise of the moral argument, one has to claim that to say "one has no moral qualms about X" means something akin to "one doesn't care whether X reflects the nature of/is commanded by God".
Sophisticated proponents of the moral argument make separate arguments to support the premise which claims that objective morality exists. Retarded ones try to pull a bait and switch instead.
The retard will run the moral argument as normal but then drop the definition of moral oughts as outlined in one of the premises and instead use the very opposite one - i.e. "to have no moral qualms about X" is suddenly used to mean "one doesn't mind X, doesn't dislike X, doesn't want to prevent X etc.". In other words, all the things that the moral argument claims cannot constitute morality suddenly do somehow constitute it for the sake of an optics takedown.
The more sophisticated retards do this on purpose while the proper cretins don't even realize the error they're making...

>>18613321
Jesus doesn't quote the compilation known as the OT. In addition the material used to compose what we know as the OT today suffered a great deal of changes

>>18613321
>Is reduced to a whimper
As expected. Your arguments suck and you don't shit about what you're talking about

>>18613327
You're the one who specifically refused my proposal to link you to a dictionary. You think I don't know what game you're playing? Fancy word games are all you've got, so I am simply not going to entertain an endless series of definitions. That is all you people are capable of doing. Rape is objectively wrong. Therefore Moral Pedro won't ever touch your asshole. cope and seethe lol

>>18613329
Mark 12:30-31, Matthew 22:37-39, Mark 7:9-13, Mark 1:1-3(misquote here incidentally), what do you mean he quotes it all the time

>>18613343
>repeatedly refuses to define his terms
>cries when I don't use the correct definition
>claims I'm the one playing games
lol
At least you've finally dropped that ridiculous bait and switch "argument", now you're just running the "it is impossible for someone to believe objective morality exists if morality isn't objective" slop.

>>18607929
Painless rape for u

>>18608257
>show me a picture of objective morals or else you're wrong!

>>18609105
>bodily autonomy
>physical security
Social constructs irrelevant to morality

File: retardisu.jpg (82 KB, 764x401)

82 KB JPG

>>18612204
>>18612539

>>18614132
>we can be sure god exists because objective morals exist
>we can be sure objective morals exist because I say they do
>no, I won't be giving any argument supporting the existence of objective morals
>just take my word for it
This is the culmination of a two millennia old intellectual tradition btw.

File: retardisyou.jpg (89 KB, 554x330)

89 KB JPG

>>18614145
>waaaah i want my moving-goalpost-proofs!

>>18614150
>asked to give an argument for his claim
>"waaah you're asking for ONE SINGLE PROOF look at this reddit comic strip"
Aquinas wept.

Rape isn't a moral issue

>>18613359
What bait and switch retard? You are just buttmad because I caught onto your pseud tactics early on. And now don't change the form of the argument you gave just because it leads to absurdities

File: Screenshot 2026-08-04 at (...).png (52 KB, 520x387)

52 KB PNG

>>18613353
All you're demonstrating is that he quotes from an older tradition that shares common content with the source material that was eventually compiled into what we know now as the OT

>>18615190
>he can't read
I described the bait and switch in detail here >>18613327. Not my problem that you've got the iq of a turnip.

There are two worlds
One where rape is objectively immoral, and one where it isn't
All else is equal, people behave the same, etc

You find yourself in one of those worlds
How do you go about figuring out which one you're in?

>>18615211
So when Jesus quotes Deuteronomy, you think he is not quoting the same book which says you're allowed to take a war brides, he's just quoting a tradition shared by Deuteronomy?

>>18615227
You rape people until you find a place where you are protected and lauded for your actions. There are many such places in the world where rape is a non-issue.

>>18607874
>You then shouldn't have any moral qualms about being raped.

I don't have any. I just find the prospect distasteful and likely physically painful.

>>18615227
>There are two worlds
>One where rape is objectively immoral, and one where it isn't
>All else is equal, people behave the same, etc
>
>You find yourself in one of those worlds
>How do you go about figuring out which one you're in?

Die. If heaven or hell follows, then it was 1. If oblivion (or some amoral limbo) then it was 2.

File: YourFallacy.jpg (233 KB, 1080x1033)

233 KB JPG

>>18615317
>distasteful

>>18615326
But I'm not saying it's evil. I just don't want it to happen to me.

>>18615326
The fallacy would apply if he were saying he has a moral qualm with it because it's distasteful, but that's explicitly not what he's doing.

>>18615317
What is the rape was tasteful and pleasurable?

I find it quite interesting that this site is full of young men who have been psyopped into thinking that the only reason they don't want to be raped is that a middle eastern deity says people shouldn't rape.

File: file.png (983 KB, 1280x720)

983 KB PNG

>>18615354
>I find it quite interesting that this site is full of young men who have been psyopped into thinking that the only reason they don't want to be raped is that a middle eastern deity says people shouldn't rape.

well this site is full of young men who want to be bent over and fucked hard after all

>>18607874
>You then shouldn't have any moral qualms about being raped.
I mean , this is 4chan people will argue for this regardless.

>>18607874
Morals are independent of religion, and only the most pathetic creature relies on supernatural threats.

File: gay.jpg (120 KB, 1003x611)

120 KB JPG

>>18615354
What's interesting is how every atheist ITT says gay rape is not morally wrong in any sense. They aren't even merely rejecting objective morals. No it's just simply not wrong for another man to use them like a woman without their consent.
>>18615358
Yes because it's full of gaytheists. At least the atheists of old attempted (and failed) to form alternative moral systems that are independent of God. Here they are literally faggots in denial

File: OGplato.png (860 KB, 1280x764)

860 KB PNG

>god invented logic and morality and keeps it in a magical invisible box in your soul
>only through leveling up your faith stat by believing in interpretations of the bible will he grant you the keys to unlocking that magical box
Christians, Muslims and Jews are psychologically programmed to believe this, telling themselves it is somehow sound-reasoning; "philosophical". The basis for orthodoxy (list of things (commandments) you're expected never to question) is neither the basis for philosophy, morality, logic, or critical-thinking. It's Abrahamic cult psychology, and it's a detriment to any process of interrogating the nature of truth - which is the true basis and purpose of philosophy.

>>18615892
>They aren't even merely rejecting objective morals. No it's just simply not wrong for another man to use them like a woman without their consent.
In what other sense would you say it's wrong beside objectively morally wrong? What's the scope of the word "wrong" in he sense that you're using it? Does the atheist have access to "wrongs" even though he does not have access to "oughts"?
I bet you won't answer this because it will collapse your "argument" again.

File: law.jpg (117 KB, 1000x623)

117 KB JPG

>>18615938
>beside objectively morally wrong
Obviously subjectively morally wrong. It can be in any other sense, even the usual "my subjective preferences dictate morality" or "current laws dictate morality" commonly believed by many atheists. Literally anything else would do no matter how shitty and unjustifiable. But nope the atheists on this board are without a doubt homosexual and eternally raped so their religious beliefs reflect their secret desires

>>18607874
Ok christian, if the god of the bible actually exists and is the ultimate model of morality, why aren't you lobbying your government to allow grown men to rape and kidnap 12 year old female virgins on the basis of your religion's one true morality?

>>18615984
Subjective morality and realist moral relativism are both incoherent as I'm sure you know (and non-realist relativism is only descriptive, not prescriptive). And if you indeed do know that, you're being disingenuous right now.

>>18615989
>And if you indeed do know that, you're being disingenuous right now.
Why? My whole point is that those types at least try to form a general opposition to gay rape. The best that the gaytheist minds ITT could muster is "my butthole would hurt so I will do my best to fight you off" Okay so if you were knocked out and lubed in a perfectly safe manner or worse the pain turned into pleasure by whatever mysterious ,means then you'd have no reason to even do that.

>>18616006
>Why?
Because you know just as well as I do that a statement like "gay sex a subjectively immoral" is incoherent. Your non-argument hinges on the idea that if the atheist REALLY didn't want to get fucked in the ass, he'd say it's subjectively wrong even if that's incoherent. Which is nonsense because the incoherency is what's motivating the rejection of the moral label in the first place.
You're stuck in a loop because you desperately want to say being a moral anti-realist dictates your likes and dislikes but you keep running into a wall because the reason for atheists being anti-realists is that likes and dislikes do not constitute moral facts and thus the fact that you hate something, don't want it to happen, will try to prevent it etc. in principle cannot mean that it's wrong.

>>18616020
>Because you know just as well as I do that a statement like "gay sex a subjectively immoral" is incoherent
Yes but at least I'd respect an atheist holding that position. He'd still be a man in my eyes even if he was completely wrong. Where is the disingenuous aspect here exactly?
>on the idea that if the atheist REALLY didn't want to get fucked in the ass, he'd say it's subjectively wrong even if that's incoherent
Most of those atheists outwardly holding that position should have no problems with lying to save face and retain their masculinity even if they don't actually believe it to be true themselves.
>the reason for atheists being anti-realists is that likes and dislikes do not constitute moral facts
True but your anti-realist position is largely fueled by your desire to get fucked in the ass without feeling guilty about it. You are smart enough to know that their alternative moral systems cannot be defended so you reject the whole thing altogether

>>18616060
You're getting all that "he's no true man, he secretly wants to get fucked etc." shit by deliberately backporting the preferential connotations of rights and wrongs from moral realism into moral anti-realism where those connotations make zero sense and hoping people don't notice. But you already know I noticed so idk why you're still pushing this line.
Just trolling at this point?

>>18616068
This is not true learn to track the point being made here. A moral realist who believes in subjective morality would say "I don't like to be raped by another man or current laws make homosexual rape illegal so it is wrong" This isn't what you're saying. Your position is "I like to be anally penetrated by real men but saying it's right or wrong subjectively makes no sense whatsoever, instead I will reject assigning a label to this act so I don't have to think about it and endure the faggotry induced guilt"

>>18616079
See? You're doing it again. You're taking the connotation from moral realism where the likes/dislikes and moral oughts proclaimed by its proponent generally come in pairs and then trying to ram that connotation into moral anti-realism, pointing to the lack of a relevant pair as evidence for the lack of the existence of the single. Funnily enough, this doesn't even pass basic scrutiny because the anti-realist would have no moral qualms with neither an action nor its opposite.
If you don't realize that you're doing this, you really are monumentally stupid.

>>18616092
>pointing to the lack of a relevant pair as evidence for the lack of the existence of the single
I specifically said you're avoid assigning ANY label. Prior to that I simply pointed out that those rejected moral systems use them and you don't think they can be justified. Even in their systems you can have something morally neutral for example. So there aren't just "pairs" to consider here.

>>18607874
Akshually according to the immaculate and inspired works of Blessed John Stuart Mill and Saint Bentham I can.

>>18616113
You missed my point. By pair I mean a pair of moral claim + attitude. Like "murder is wrong and I hate it". "Charity is right and I love it."
Because these usually come paired under moral realism, you're taking the lack of one half of the pair under moral anti-realism to be evidence of a lack of the other half.

>>18616118
I'd like to read the specific verse from your atheistic scripture talking about gay rape
>>18616120
>you're taking the lack of one half of the pair under moral anti-realism to be evidence of a lack of the other half
Not so, in fact I am saying you believe something more like "gay rape is amoral and I love it". You couldn't possibly believe in "gay rape is amoral and I hate it" because the subjective moral systems discussed would say "gay rape is wrong and I hate it" when trying to prove that gay rape is disliked because you find it wrong. You however explicitly reject this link. Of course there's also the possibility of rejecting a belief in an inverted subjective moral system "gay rape is right and I hate it" but I've yet to see even one person make this claim. Meaning it's very likely an extremely small percentage of the population of people who believe in subjective morals and are thus insignificant in your rejection of subjective morality. There's also the "gay rape is right/wrong and I have no particular feelings towards it" camp which is admittedly a bisexual position (so it doesn't help my case nor harm it) to hold and again likely an extremely small minority so it doesn't matter in my analysis of your true feelings on gay rape

>>18616176
>You couldn't possibly believe in "gay rape is amoral and I hate it" because the subjective moral systems discussed would say "gay rape is wrong and I hate it"
We're not talking about subjective moral systems, we're talking about moral anti-realism.
If you want to say an anti-realist can't say he has no moral qualms with gay rape yet still hates it, then you have to claim that the anti-realist doesn't hate anything at all because the anti-realist has no moral qualms about anything. And just like he doesn't think anything is immoral, he also doesn't think anything is moral, so by the same analysis you have to claim that he doesn't love anything at all.
And you only arrive at this because you insist that attitudes have to come in pairs with moral claims.
I.e. you lost, GG.

>>18616182
>We're not talking about subjective moral systems
Yes we are. These are the atheist approved moral systems you explicitly reject. Most of them believe "gay rape is wrong and I hate it" compared to the other possible combinations. Meaning that I am justified to believe that this is the primary reason you reject them making you a massive faggot
>you have to claim that the anti-realist doesn't hate anything at all
>you have to claim that he doesn't love anything at all.
You're confusing your position. A moral anti-realist only cares about rejecting moral facts as being true. He could hate, love or not care about anything he pleases. My analysis takes all possible combinations into account that you could take in relation to a someone believing in subjective morals. Yes even "gay rape is amoral and I have no particular feelings towards it" which I didn't mention in the previous post, this is a bisexual position making you a faggot in any case lol. A straight man could only hate gay rape

>>18616176
It can be deduced using reason. We don't need crusty to explain it.

>>18616192
>These are the atheist approved moral systems you explicitly reject.
Yes, because as we both agree, they are incoherent.
>Most of them believe "gay rape is wrong and I hate it" compared to the other possible combinations. Meaning that I am justified to believe that this is the primary reason you reject them
That's just your final cope because you lost the debate about anti-realism.
>You're confusing your position.
I explicitly said that this is what you have to conclude if you want to say an anti-realist can't have no moral qualms with gay rape yet hate it. If you don't want to say that, you've conceded every relevant point and are just shitposting now.
Thanks for the concession, my Mexican friend.

>>18616195
I don't know who crusty is. Deduce using reason the morality of being raped in the ass by another man

>>18616197
>Yes, because as we both agree, they are incoherent
And your absolute love for anal defilement at the hands of an extremely short, brown and hairy Mexican BVLL
>>Most of them believe "gay rape is wrong and I hate it" compared to the other possible combinations
>That's just your
So you're saying that you can find a huge percentage of the population of people that believe in subjective morality with the other combinations? I can point to secular democratic states which made gay rape illegal to prove my statements and how people dislike rape, and you?
>I explicitly said
Yeah but that's just a statement devoid of any reasoning while I gave you mine for why such a position is impossible

>>18616205
>And your absolute love for anal defilement at the hands of an extremely short, brown and hairy Mexican BVLL
Cope again.
>So you're saying that you can find a huge percentage of the population of people that believe in subjective morality with the other combinations?
Learn to read, Pedro. Your cope is that you're justified in believing the rot you're spewing about what my motivations for anti-realism are.
>Yeah but that's just a statement devoid of any reasoning while I gave you mine for why such a position is impossible
You truly are illiterate. I never said an anti-realist cannot hate or love anything, I said that's what you'd have to conclude if you aimed the "attitude must be paired with moral claim" argument at an anti-realist.
So all in all, the venerable moral argument for the existence of God collapsed into "objective morals must be true because otherwise some favela-dwelling mestizo will accuse you of being a faggot". Peak Christian philosophy.

>>18616206
And yet you can't provide the evidence required to invalidate my argument. I am indeed justified in believing you're a pink cock hungry smooth skinned Muñeco
>I said that's what you'd have to conclude
I am well aware. But where is the justification? Also you lack a moral claim regarding gay rape you fucking idiot, so you can't even track the conversation nor do you know your position.

>>18616216
>And yet you can't provide the evidence required to invalidate my argument.
What argument? You're literally just positing I can't be an anti-realist due to thinking subjectivism and relativism are incoherent because if you were an atheist, you'd lie and pretend to be a subjectivist to avoid getting called a faggot by your mestizo retard buddies lol.
>I am well aware. But where is the justification?
Here. >>18616182 And you even concede that I'm right and the "attitude must be paired with moral claim" argument doesn't work against anti-realists here >>18616192, so idk what you're even trying to argue against now.

>>18616224
>I can't be an anti-realist
lmao confirmed for subhuman retard, I am arguing YOU ARE anti-realist and that your rejection of subjectivism is driven by your love for gay rape PLUS its incoherence. Did you forget the first word "And" here? >>18616205
>if you were an atheist, you'd lie and pretend to be a subjectivist
Wrong, if you were a straight atheist YOU WOULD BE a subjectivist and you'd rather lie that your moral claim against gay rape can be defended than admit you have no moral issues with a man putting his chorizo up your butt. Instead we know you are a gay atheist so you make that love known
>Here
Quote the relevant portion exactly + your faulty claim about what it means. You've just revealed yourself to be illiterate.

>>18616240
>I can't be an anti-realist
>lmao confirmed for subhuman retard
Do you have some disability that prevents you from reading whole sentences? Let's try again "I can't be an anti-realist due to thinking subjectivism and relativism are incoherent" - i.e. the reason for why I'm an anti-realist cannot be me thinking subjectivism and relativism are incoherent.
>your rejection of subjectivism is driven by your love for gay rape PLUS its incoherence.
And as I said, your reason for thinking this is that you'd pretend to be a subjectivist because you're afraid your mestizo buds would call you a faggot.
>Wrong, if you were a straight atheist YOU WOULD BE a subjectivist
If you believe subjectivism is incoherent, you would only be pretending to be a subjectivist.
>you'd rather lie that your moral claim against gay rape can be defended than admit you have no moral issues with a man putting his chorizo up your butt
As you've already conceded, the pairing argument doesn't work against anti-realists which means that an anti-realist can hate gay rape yet have no moral qualms with it.
>Quote the relevant portion exactly + your faulty claim about what it means.
"If you want to say an anti-realist can't say he has no moral qualms with gay rape yet still hates it, then you have to claim that the anti-realist doesn't hate anything at all because the anti-realist has no moral qualms about anything. And just like he doesn't think anything is immoral, he also doesn't think anything is moral, so by the same analysis you have to claim that he doesn't love anything at all."
^ This is a reductio ad absurdum of possible arguments that would try to use pairing argument against anti-realism. It means that someone who wants to use the pairing argument against an anti-realist would have to claim that the anti-realist neither loves nor hates anything, rendering the pairing argument absurd when aimed against anti-realists.

>>18616245
Thanks for confirming your retardation ape. I accepted that this is part of the reason when I mentioned the PLUS in addition to the "And". In what what am I denying you're an anti-realist at all?
>your reason for thinking this
Nope we went over the reason here >>18616176 this part has absolutely nothing to do with the femboy discord server you're a part of disowning you for your extreme faggotry
>If you believe subjectivism is incoherent, you would only be pretending to be a subjectivist.
Doesn't follow, cognitive dissonance and pragmatism has been observed in human beings
>As you've already
That didn't happen, you only think it did because of your estrogen induced schizophrenia
>keeps quoting himself while pretending his diarrhea is my opinion
lmao concession accepted. No wonder you couldn't provide empirical evidence that would dismantle my argument. As it stands there's no reason to believe that you'd have to neither love or hate anything. I mean it's obvious already you do love one thing, BMC

>>18616006
This is so dumb
>you'd have no reason to even do that.
I could JUST have a preference to not have my anus be penetrated by penis, that's all it takes for me to have a reason.

If you want to make a hypothetical, where my preference were different such that I wanted to be raped. Well, duh.. It would be trivially true that I'd have no such reason.


What about your view, what if was an objective moral fact that your ass (just yours) should be raped? Then it would be moral to do so.
You have to say some nonsense about it being metaphysically impossible

>>18607874
If God ordered you to rape would you rape?

>>18615892
What do you think "morals" are? Can you give your own interpretation/definition of what they are? That's where the disconnect is.

>>18616313
>In what what am I denying you're an anti-realist at all?
I never said that, Pedro. You're just illiterate.
>Nope we went over the reason here
This is the pair argument. Here >>18616192 you concede that the pair argument only works against subjectivists, not anti-realists ("A moral anti-realist only cares about rejecting moral facts as being true. He could hate, love or not care about anything he pleases. My analysis takes all possible combinations into account that you could take in relation to a someone believing in subjective morals.")
>Doesn't follow, cognitive dissonance and pragmatism has been observed in human beings
You can go ahead and believe people can simultaneously believe something to be incoherent and true. Doesn't change the core point which is that you'd deliberately claim to be a subjectivist just because you're afraid of what your retard friends would say about you.
>That didn't happen
""A moral anti-realist only cares about rejecting moral facts as being true. He could hate, love or not care about anything he pleases. My analysis takes all possible combinations into account that you could take in relation to a someone believing in subjective morals."
>As it stands there's no reason to believe that you'd have to neither love or hate anything.
I would have to neither love nor hate anything IF THE PAIR ARGUMENT WERE SUCCESSFUL AGAINST ANTI-REALISTS. Bu your shitty pair argument does not work against anti-realists so I'm free to love or hate whatever I want, including hating things which I have no moral qualms about. You failed.

>>18607874
really humorous post

File: gigachad.jpg (65 KB, 1068x601)

65 KB JPG

>>18616346
>If God ordered you to rape would you rape?

Damn straight I would.

What does it even mean for something to be "immoral"? Why should I care?

Please answer without appealing to subjective desires, preferences goals or values. That includes stuff like consequences I would prefer to avoid.
Those could all be equally true given moral anti realism.

>>18616335
>I could JUST have a preference
That's not sufficient to establish a violent response, for example you could prefer green apples for breakfast but if someone gave you red apples you wouldn't punch him in the face. Similarly the gaytheists of this board could prefer to jerk off with a dildo up their ass but if a gay rapist decided to be your dildo (without your consent) you wouldn't have a reason to punch him in the face either
>what if
Impossible, objective morality is the same in every possible world because it is grounded in the unchanging nature of the necessary being

>>18607874
> You then shouldn't have any moral qualms about being raped.
Correct, I don't. But I dislike being raped for personal reasons, it feels insulting to my ego. Which is why I will either fight you physically, or legally, if you try. Morality does not have anything to do with this.

>>18616386
Except I quoted you saying that exactly, and then you got buttmad when I pointed out that your level of stupidity excludes you from humanity. Notice how when you quote me you have to insert words that were never typed out by myself. There's a difference here, and I don't really expect a bottom bitch with a brain rattled by constant plapping to be able to comprehend it.
>the pair argument only works against subjectivists
This is false, you too have a "pair" (no balls though, you clearly cut those off a long time ago) it's just that one of them is a lack of a moral claim regrading gay rape. That doesn't mean this fact cannot be paired up with your desire. We went over all the possible combinations and how the straight position is the vast majority within subjective moral frameworks. You reject subjective morality and therefore it's reasonable to conclude that the majority position constitutes a significant portion of the reasons for your denial of their system. In addition to the incoherence of course which has never been denied
>doesn't change the core point which is that you'd deliberately claim to be a subjectivist
It would because if someone knows their position is incoherent and true at the same time, then they wouldn't merely claim to be a subjectivist to save face. They'd actually be one! While at the same time sleeping easily knowing that their masculinity still exists. Despite knowing his position cannot stand scrutiny during argumentation and him having to resort to lies to pretend that it still works.
>I'm free to love or hate whatever I want, including hating things which I have no moral qualms about
That's merely what your position states in a vacuum devoid of any context. But the unchallenged analysis shows us that there is something deeper (it's probably the BMC up your bussy) going on here

>>18618056
>it feels insulting to my ego
Why does it feel insulting to your ego? Atheists have no issues with homosexuality so that part doesn't need to be justified. So why is rape an insult?
>legally
Those are basically the codified existing morals of a society

>>18618076
> Atheists have no issues with homosexuality so that part doesn't need to be justified.
Tolerating homosexuality does not mean one is homosexual or is interested in gay sex. I find it disgusting, just like I find stewed cabbage disgusting, but I am OK with other people having gay sex or eating stewed cabbage, as long as they don't force me to do it.
> So why is rape an insult?
Because it's by definition nonconsensual sex, and I find it insulting when someone does things to me without my consent. I would react to this the same as I would react to someone stealing my laptop or breaking into my car.
> Those are basically the codified existing morals of a society
I don't know about that, as far as I can tell they diverge from that pretty quickly because of political compromises. The absolute majority of people in a small town where my parents live believe that gay sex, not just marriage, should be outright illegal and sodomy should be brought back as a criminal code statute - but it is not, and if one of them tries to bring evidence of two men from the town fucking into the police precinct the cops will laugh him out. The absolute majority of a large city where I live believe abortion should be effectively unlimited, but it is not, and if a doctor performs one, they - and the woman - will go to jail for a long time.

File: lgbt_identification_vs_so(...).jpg (185 KB, 1200x1191)

185 KB JPG

>>18618085
>Tolerating homosexuality does not mean one is homosexual or is interested in gay sex.
The more a group tolerates faggotry the more they start identifying as faggots themselves. The fact you even equate food to sticking your dick in a shit hole speaks volumes.
>I find it insulting when someone does things to me without my consent
Why? Do you feel insulted because your mother gave you breast milk as a baby?
>The absolute majority of people in a small town where my parents live believe that gay sex, not just marriage, should be outright illegal and sodomy should be brought back as a criminal code statute - but it is not
That's easily explained. Most of the people in your nation are tolerant of faggotry and/or faggots themselves. They just so happen to live in a sane community but they don't have the numbers to fight the gay hordes surrounding them

>>18618091
>The more a group tolerates faggotry the more they start identifying as faggots themselves
I'm not sure that statistic shows what you think it shows. If society broadly does not accept gays, especially if it makes gay sex a crime, then obviously gays will not admit that they are gay, and will be what they are in secret. If it becomes broadly acceptable, then they will start coming out. That does not mean the actual % of gays in society has increased.
I'd bet that if we found a country that legalized gay sex and marriage early, and social acceptance caught up fast (meaning, it's both legal and not socially controversial to be openly gay), and then looked at the data over the next 20-30 years, we'd find the level stabilizing about five years in. Maybe the scandinavian countries would be a good test if you found the data that does not include middle eastern or african immigrants (who are often much more conservative).
It's kinda like doing a poll in Russia on whether people support the war in Ukraine. Do you think anyone who is willing to respond to pollsters will openly admit to not supporting it, when that can land them in prison?
> Why?
I don't know, actually, but I think I like being self-sufficient.
> Do you feel insulted because your mother gave you breast milk as a baby?
I don't remember my mother giving me milk, but if someone treated me like a baby now I would find it insulting.

>>18618095
Responding to polls honestly on your level of faggotry does not make you land in prison in most countries. That's absolutely ridiculous to believe. You do realize that in many of these states they are free to vote for opposing minority political parties right? Surely that's more of a concern to the people in power than the homosexuality they likely partake in themselves
>I don't know, actually, but I think I like being self-sufficient.
You can be self sufficient and raped at the same time
>I don't remember my mother giving me milk, but if someone treated me like a baby now I would find it insulting.
That explains your abnormal perception regarding cabbage and hairy shit holes. But I didn't ask you about now. Would you take legal action against your mother because she fed you when you couldn't consent to it? Would you beat her senseless instead? What if I start treating you like a baby? I need to know how you are planning to retaliate in these situations

File: pedrophile.jpg (390 KB, 2494x1328)

390 KB JPG

>>18616346
Is it rape if God willed it to happen? I am made to rape the person whom God willed to be the receptacle of my spillage

>>18618085
>I find it insulting when someone does things to me without my consent.
Got it, so gift-giving is insulting to you. Happy surprises, pranks, lottery wins, and the like all equally insult you because they are nonconsensual.
You should know that consent is a fake social construct.

>>18617997
>That's not sufficient to establish a violent response
Yes it is.
I just care way more about my butt not being raped, than apples. You can't compare apples and anuses.

>>18618105
>Is it rape if God willed it to happen?
Yes.

>>18618261
See now you added something extra, "just a preference" is not the same thing as a "strong preference" One is implying you are highly flexible on the matter but you'd lean one way, while with the other you'd be rigid and difficult to budge while still leaning one way. In any case this is still not enough justification for a violent response. If you absolutely hated red apples (let's say because of a traumatic event in the past involving them) you still would't punch a person giving them to you in the face. Especially when compared to a pencil dick slightly tickling your bum for a few minutes which under this situation you'd hate way less. It's clear one you consider wrong here and it's because all humans have a moral compass. You've just deluded yourself into thinking you have none because of your religious beliefs
>can't compare apples and anuses
Okay, we will focus on an anus in different situations where you'd get raped and tell me who gets the punch: BBC rapist, white chode rapist, limp feminine penis rapist, penis extender rapist, strap on rapist, fisting obsessed rapist, foot fucking rapist, tongue rapist, brap enjoyer nose rapist, male gaze eye rapist, rapist knocking you out and bouncing on your pecker with his own anus, rapist fucking your urethra with frozen poop icicles, non-physical contact cum splashing rapist, etc. What about if the rapist was an ugly female? What if she was hot? What if she was your mother raping you with a bar of soap for the sole purpose of keeping slavic tradition alive? What if your maternal rapist was hot too? What if it was a doctor sneakily raping your ass with a massive fecal transplant suppository because you'll die without it? What if the rape was impossible to feel and it doesn't harm you? What if your prostate was stimulated by the rapist in such a way you came buckets and it made your brain permanently associate his penis with pure bliss? We kneed to know the exact situation that will trigger your violent ways

>>18618418
Look, this is just a concession as far I'm concerned. I was making a point regarding preference being a reason, and it seems you agree with me.
I don't care at all for this strong/weak preference waffling

>>18618662
I don't agree with you actually, you haven't given a justification for your violent response to homosexual rape that wouldn't equally apply in all sorts of other situations. Even a strong preference would not make you act that way

>>18612711
>Deuteronomy 21
>10 When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, 11 suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, 12 and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, 13 discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.
not rape

>Numbers 31
>9 The Israelites took the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and they took all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods as booty.
Deuteronomy precedes Numbers and already establishes how the captive women should be treated; see the aforementioned passage. Not rape.

>2 Samuel 16
>20 Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give us your counsel; what shall we do?” 21 Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, the ones he has left to look after the house; and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself odious to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” 22 So they pitched a tent for Absalom upon the roof; and Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel. 23 Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the oracle of God; so all the counsel of Ahithophel was esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.
the text says it was 'as if' Ahithophel's counsel was from God from the pov of the men at the time because it seemed wise to them however the text never says the Lord is actually involved at all nor does he ever intervene, speak or command anything - and Absalom's rebellion against David literally fails afterwards.

>>18613292
>>18613329
>>18615211
don't make arguments like this, they don't work.
see this >>18618890 re-read your Bible more.

>>18618680
People act violently on all kinds of whims, why would it have to be different in this case?
You said it, it would be weird for people to act this way about apples. But I don't think it would be weird in case of rape

>>18618890
In regards to Deuteronomy 21, it is in fact still rape even if you wait a month before raping your prisoner. There is nothing in the passage that suggests the woman has any say in this, and why would she, she is already a captive.
For Numbers 31, if you read the entire chapter you will see that after the verse you quoted God had the Israelites go back and kill the adult women and the boys while keeping the virgin girls as captives (verses 15-18) and then has them divided among the Israelites as war booty(verses 25 onward).
>Deuteronomy precedes Numbers and already establishes how the captive women should be treated
Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31 aren't even describing the same scenario, but both of them allow the taking of sex slaves. The former describes the taking of a war bride, in the latter they are just outright slaves who can be put to work, sold, or yes, raped.
>the text never says the Lord is actually involved at all nor does he ever intervene, speak or command anything
For 2 Samuel, again if you have actually read the book, or even earlier in the thread, you would see in 2 Samuel 12 God causes and takes credit for what happens in 2 Samuel 16. Reposting
>11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’
All of this is again to establish rape is only bad when God says it is. He could tell you to rape someone and the correct thing would be to do it.
>>18618894
His argument was that the Old Testament wasn't authoritative scripture at all. I don't know how he would back that up but it is fundamentally different from trying to argue the words the Old Testament uses don't mean what they say.

>>18615756
>obeys the laws of the culture because of fear

>>18618933
>Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31 aren't even describing the same scenario
no, the passage in Deuteronomy is a prescription on how to treat captured women in battle. The whole point of leaving them to grieve for a month is to give them time to see if they will come around to wanting to be the wife of their captor and if not, then they are to be released and they are not to be treated as a slave in the meantime. Rape is not permitted.

>2 Samuel 12
God causing/allowing a thing to happen is not the same thing as God COMMANDING a thing to happen and certainly doesn't mean it's an enduring prescription that can apply in any scenario or a baseline rule. God never commands Absalom to rape David's concubines, he simply says it will happen in response to what David did (taking Uriah's wife) and - crucially, it is contingent on how David himself says he would respond to and punish his own sin:

>1 and the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. 2 The rich man had very many flocks and herds; 3 but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. He brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his meager fare, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. 4 Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was loath to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared that for the guest who had come to him.” 5 Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man. He said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; 6 he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

It's reminiscent of Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant. David says the man (himself) should be fiercely punished so he is by God allowing Absalom's rebellion

>>18619023
>no, the passage in Deuteronomy is a prescription on how to treat captured women in battle. The whole point of leaving them to grieve for a month is to give them time to see if they will come around to wanting to be the wife of their captor and if not, then they are to be released and they are not to be treated as a slave in the meantime. Rape is not permitted.
No, it is a prescription of how to treat captured women who you think are hot. Them "coming around to wanting to be the wife of their captor" is not in there, they are only released if their captor decides he doesn't want them, their permission and consent doesn't factor in. Her release, and her not being sold as a slave in fact only happen after she has been raped, because after that point she has been dishonored.
We know Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 31 are describing different scenarios because they give different prescriptions. Deuteronomy 20 says when you capture a city "far from you", you are to keep the women and children as spoils, otherwise kill everything that breathes, but Numbers 31 says kill everyone, including women and boys, except for the virgin girls.
>God causing/allowing a thing to happen is not the same thing as God COMMANDING a thing to happen
You're right, it's worse because he's the one actually making it happen.
>and certainly doesn't mean it's an enduring prescription that can apply in any scenario or a baseline rule
I never said this, I said under your world view, rape is permissible when God says it is, and the right thing to do if God ordered you to rape someone, would be to rape them.
>God never commands Absalom to rape David's concubines, he simply says it will happen in response to what David did
Again, he doesn't "simply say it will happen", he literally says "I will make this happen".
And to be clear, part of David's punishment is that his wives are raped. They didn't actually do anything, but according to your morals, being raped for someone else's crime is just.

>>18619064
>Them "coming around to wanting to be the wife of their captor" is not in there, they are only released if their captor decides he doesn't want them, their permission and consent doesn't factor in
it does, that's what not treating them like a slave means. A slave would have no say in the matter therefore treating them not like a slave obviously means they do have a say in the matter.
>Her release, and her not being sold as a slave in fact only happen after she has been raped, because after that point she has been dishonored.
No, you are just assuming that's what the dishonored part means. There were many ways to be dishonored in the ancient world in this context, the dishonor refers to the fact that they were taken captive. Losing to an enemy warring tribe/city-state and being taken into captivity or exile is a form of dishonor.
>Numbers 31
is still a city far from them, the virgin girls are treated the same as prescribed in Deuteronomy 21, there is no reason to think otherwise

>You're right, it's worse because he's the one actually making it happen
>he literally says "I will make this happen".
God is the ultimate source of everything so in some sense everything is 'caused' by God and is described this way but it doesn't necessarily mean God is commanding/forcing a thing to happen, like Absalom is mind-controlled and made to do it. Psalms describes things like rivers flowing or the wind being God doing it continuously; the ancient Hebrew conception of God and what it means when He is written saying "I will cause [X event]" isn't the same as the modern conception of a man in the sky, separate to his own world, interjecting like an alien to change natural events.
>I said under your world view, rape is permissible when God says it is, and the right thing to do if God ordered you to rape someone, would be to rape them.
God never commands anyone to rape and everything I know about God and what is stated about Him suggests it's against His nature to do so.

>>18619105
>it does, that's what not treating them like a slave means. A slave would have no say in the matter therefore treating them not like a slave obviously means they do have a say in the matter.
Point out where in the passage the woman has a say. What it actually says is "After that you may go in to her", not "you may go into her unless she doesn't want you to in which case you have to let her go".
>There were many ways to be dishonored in the ancient world in this context, the dishonor refers to the fact that they were taken captive.
If that were the case you wouldn't be able to sell or treat any female captives as slaves which you also won't find in there. Deuteronomy 21 is specifically talking about a beautiful woman who you want to take as a wife, not women generally.
>is still a city far from them, the virgin girls are treated the same as prescribed in Deuteronomy 21, there is no reason to think otherwise
Because if it were being treated as a city far away they wouldn't have been ordered to kill the adult women or the boys. Numbers 31 also describes a division of spoils that is not in Deuteronomy.
>Psalms describes things like rivers flowing or the wind being God doing it continuously; the ancient Hebrew conception of God and what it means when He is written saying "I will cause [X event]" isn't the same as the modern conception
Psalms is poetry, Samuel is an ostensibly historical account in which God directly says "I will do this thing" and then that thing happens and is presented explicitly as a punishment from God. When God says "I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven", and then the earth floods, do you think he didn't actually do that?
>God never commands anyone to rape and everything I know about God and what is stated about Him suggests it's against His nature to do so.
You also haven't read the bible so I don't think you know much about God.

>>18619140
>You also haven't read the bible so I don't think you know much about God.
this is the trouble with debating 21st century atheists in the west, they are all protestant atheists, with a protestant understanding of the Bible - sola scriptura & treating the OT and NT as equally weighted sections with the OT being examined on its own without the NT - and a protestant - and post-Reformation, post-Reinaissance, rationalist/scholastic - understanding of God and will constantly insist on holding you to a protestant strawman and trying to make ou argue on protestant terms and will become annoyed and confused when you do not do this and inevitably declare "I know the Bible better than theists!"

I am not a protestant, and my knowledge and understanding of God is not primarily based on the basic text of the Bible, but rather is experientially informed from my own experience of God personally and in the Church and how this conforms to the Bible when evaluated in light of Jesus and the new testament, which takes precedence, since this is the actual revelation of what God is really like in person.
I honestly, in truth, have no idea exactly how certain passages in the old testament such as the Israelites' conquest of Canaan or Absalom's rebellion make sense in light of how God is revealed as Jesus, but since I must have faith that it does make sense, somehow, I will grasp at explanations to make sense of it in a way that conforms with what is revealed about God in Jesus. Ultimately, not being able to explain it and being left troubled by such passages is not a deal-breaker and it is not necessary for salvation.

For over 300 years after the founding of the Church, there was no Bible and the faith of the laity wasn't reliant on explaining these passages, the clergy and theologians did it for them and there are over a thousand years of theology that long since escaped your way of looking at the text, but you will have none of it, because you are a protestant atheist.

>>18619179
>my knowledge and understanding of God is not primarily based on the basic text of the Bible, but rather is experientially informed from my own experience of God personally and in the Church and how this conforms to the Bible when evaluated in light of Jesus and the new testament, which takes precedence, since this is the actual revelation of what God is really like in person
I don't know how you're figuring out how things conform with the bible if you haven't read it and are now telling me you don't actually think you need to.
>I honestly, in truth, have no idea exactly how certain passages in the old testament such as the Israelites' conquest of Canaan or Absalom's rebellion make sense in light of how God is revealed as Jesus, but since I must have faith that it does make sense, somehow, I will grasp at explanations to make sense of it in a way that conforms with what is revealed about God in Jesus.
This is all working backwards. You are, ironically, taking your modern sensibilities and retrofitting them to a God from a 1000s year old book. You think rape is bad, and God is good, so he must also think rape is bad.
I'm glad you think that, I'm glad these passages give you pause, truly. I think your idea of God is probably more pleasant than the actual biblical God, I just think you have little reason to believe in it other than liking the idea. Jesus for his part quotes the Old Testament constantly, and is pretty big on following the laws of it.
>For over 300 years after the founding of the Church, there was no Bible and the faith of the laity wasn't reliant on explaining these passages
Because they didn't need to. Most of the objectionable passages in the bible were not objectionable for most of Christian history. War rape, slavery, massacres, all pretty normal parts of life. Sucks if they happen to you but otherwise who cares. Jesus himself is totally unbothered by slavery. He mentions it in stories and parables and never goes "oh btw don't own slaves"

>>18619207
>if you haven't read it and are now telling me you don't actually think you need to
I have read it and I never said I think you don't need to, I said you don't need to 100% understand all of it. The most important part is the gospels in the new testament, and the entire purpose of the old testament is to foreshadow Jesus. The most significant parts of the old testament are 'the law and the prophets' and the psalms, since this is what Jesus constantly mentions and what His legitimacy is primarily built upon; the law in particular referring to the main commandments and all of the levitical and sacrificial sections, since this presages Jesus, and the prophets referring to Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc.

>This is all working backwards
yeah, from the new testament and looking at the OT in light of it.
>You think rape is bad, and God is good, so he must also think rape is bad
No, I think God is good so he must also think rape is bad because John, the beloved disciple, says that God IS love, not because of my modern sensibilities.

When I was an atheist, I had a truly nihilistic worldview and genuinely thought things like "rape isn't actually bad because morality doesn't really exist, it's just a meme, I've just been socialized to have a disgust response to it but I can't make any actual rational argument against it, or racism, or might makes right, or incest, or shitposting all day saying slurs at people etc. in a world where morality isn't real." I'm not even a particularly nice person now either but it's ONLY because I know God exists and is Jesus that therefore I must follow what is stated about Him, that I have to think He IS love because John says so in his gospel/letters and it fits my own personal experience of God and how He affected my own ability to love others.
I KNOW God is love, because I was unable to love without God. It has nothing to do with "modern sensibilities." I fit in perfectly fine in the modern world when I was unloving.

>>18619207
>Most of the objectionable passages in the bible were not objectionable for most of Christian history
No, theologians have thought about them for a long time.
>War rape, slavery, massacres, all pretty normal parts of life
Jesus pretty clearly says killing people is bad and that even just internally hating another person counts as breaking the 'you must not kill' commandment so how can you possibly think HE, or Christians, were advocating for being ok with harming people in any capacity. The fact that there were Christians who did such things anyway means nothing since the validity of the claims of the Christian worldview is not contingent on the behavior of its adherents unlike some religions, since the Christian worldview already says literally everyone is an evil sinner regardless who will always fall short and struggle to be holy.
>Jesus himself is totally unbothered by slavery. He mentions it in stories and parables and never goes "oh btw don't own slaves"
Jesus never prescribes owning slaves either, he simply just speaks in terms that the people of the time will understand. Something that you need to understand about God is that he doesn't often interfere with history in upheaving/interfering ways that violate free will. Had Jesus said not to own slaves, do you think they would have listened to Him? It would have been baffling to them and they wouldn't have listened and Jesus would not have forced them to. God works via the Holy Spirit indwelling in people's hearts and changes the world this way, through helping people's choices, not like a dictator playing Sims.

A curious fact about people sacrificing animals in the OT is God never actually tells people to start it in the narrative, even during Cain and Abel - they just come up with it on their own then God comes down to say how to manage it; the whole Bible is like this in how God interacts with humans - this is the meaning of God saying he will never flood the Earth again; he lets the humans be.

>>18619275
>No, I think God is good so he must also think rape is bad because John, the beloved disciple, says that God IS love, not because of my modern sensibilities.
>When I was an atheist, I had a truly nihilistic worldview and genuinely thought things like "rape isn't actually bad because morality doesn't really exist, it's just a meme, I've just been socialized to have a disgust response to it
Do you not think this is a modern sensibility? The point is you are drawing the idea that rape is incompatible with the idea from John that God is love from somewhere outside of the bible because the bible never says that. It condemns it in some circumstances but as discussed it's not a problem in others. Do you think slavery is incompatible with God being love, because God and Jesus are both totally fine with that too.

>>18619296
>Jesus pretty clearly says killing people is bad and that even just internally hating another person counts as breaking the 'you must not kill' commandment so how can you possibly think HE, or Christians, were advocating for being ok with harming people in any capacity.
Because he(unless you aren't a trinitarian either) does it constantly in the Old Testament, and ultimately he is planning on torturing forever everyone who doesn't believe in him. When he says "don't murder"he is again quoting the Old Testament.
>Something that you need to understand about God is that he doesn't often interfere with history in upheaving/interfering ways that violate free will.
Giving out laws is how God spends like half of his time(the other half is spent brutally punishing people), what do you mean? "God won't violate free will" is a 100% post biblical invention, you will not find a single syllable in the bible that suggests this is motivation of is. He interferes with it constantly.
>Had Jesus said not to own slaves, do you think they would have listened to Him?
He says it would be better to cut off your own hand rather than sin. He tells them to hate their own family. The idea that Jesus had to be some sort of political moderate and couldn't upset the status quo is obviously silly, that was basically his entire deal.
Paul goes even further on the subject and says slaves should remain slaves and should obey their masters even if their masters are cruel to them.
>not like a dictator playing Sims.
This is actually exactly how he operates. He sets traps for people and then punishes them when they trip them. In 1 Kings 13 he sets up one of his own prophets to be attacked by a lion.

>>18619329
>>18619334
>The point is you are drawing the idea that rape is incompatible with the idea from John that God is love from somewhere outside of the bible
when the Bible talks about things like love and loving others, do you think it's referring to some other alternate world, alien version of it that exists in a world that is different to ours in which the humans there experience emotions totally differently and somehow don't realize that raping someone is them being unloving or something? They were still people just like us and experienced feelings and everything in the same way; I am drawing the idea that rape is incompatible with the concept of love from the fact that it's intuitively incompatible with it, obviously.

Your hyperviolent Berserk/Game of Thrones version of the ancient world where the people are like a totally different species that even internally thought and felt differently to us like aliens isn't real and is cartoonish and meme-tier, and is a result of what a moral/cultural relativist worldview does to you, where you think insane things like "well obviously when they said love they didn't mean like, 21st century love because they were just, like, less civillized different types of humans, cultured differently."
When John is talking about love, he means what it sounds like, obviously. Do you think they didn't feel troubled by seeing slaves beaten or wince at seeing people executed or something? Ludicrous. Things like slavery would never have even been abolished if this wasn't the case - do you think humans just had a magical mental upgrade at some point because of arbitrary time passing or what? Ironically, it's literally only because of God and Christianity that slavery even was abolished (in the west anyway).
>Do you think slavery is incompatible with God being love
obviously, which is why Jesus never commands it

>>18619329
>>18619334
>Because he(unless you aren't a trinitarian either) does it constantly in the Old Testament
only God is actually allowed to harm or kill anyone because He is God and has perfect understanding whereas humans do not. As I said, I will not pretend to understand how some of the examples make sense - or even that they really happened as described - I simply have faith that they make sense somehow since I already know God is real, so it must make sense.
>ultimately he is planning on torturing forever everyone who doesn't believe in him
the Bible never actually describes Hell as a place with elaborate tortures or what it really entails, just that it is a place of destroying fire.
>Giving out laws is how God spends like half of his time
laws to manage human societies specifically in order to prepare the world for the Messiah/the full revelation of God in person. It was important that the kingdom of Israel and the mosaic law be established in order to lead up to Jesus and have Him and His mission be comprehendable in the minds of the people; it was necessary the the concept of the anointed kings, the levitical system of sacrifice, the commandments about how to treat neighbors, the propehtic expectation of a Messiah coming out of an established kingdom etc was already established.
>you will not find a single syllable in the bible that suggests this is motivation of is
the fact that God doesn't just wipe out the entire Earth all over again proves this is a motivation of His. The fact that following Jesus or not is a choice shows that it is a motivation of His. The fact that Jesus is not a conqueror who just takes over the world and willingly lets Himself be executed, even pointing out that he could summon thousands of angels to save Himself, proves this.
>He says it would be better to cut off your own hand rather than sin. He tells them to hate their own family.
You are intentionally misunderstanding extreme figurative language used to make a point.

>>18619334
>Paul goes even further on the subject and says slaves should remain slaves and should obey their masters even if their masters are cruel to them
Paul is advising how to live a Christian life on a day to day basis in a way that sets a good example to convince other people to convert, not prescribing social/political policy. Even if it Paul himself couldn't imagine a society without slavery at the time, it doesn't matter.

>In 1 Kings 13 he sets up one of his own prophets to be attacked by a lion.
incorrect

>11 Now there lived an old prophet in Bethel. One of his sons came and told him all that the man of God had done that day in Bethel; the words also that he had spoken to the king, they told to their father. 12 Their father said to them, “Which way did he go?” And his sons showed him the way that the man of God who came from Judah had gone. 13 Then he said to his sons, “Saddle a donkey for me.” So they saddled a donkey for him, and he mounted it. 14 He went after the man of God, and found him sitting under an oak tree. He said to him, “Are you the man of God who came from Judah?” He answered, “I am.” 15 Then he said to him, “Come home with me and eat some food.” 16 But he said, “I cannot return with you, or go in with you; nor will I eat food or drink water with you in this place; 17 for it was said to me by the word of the Lord: You shall not eat food or drink water there, or return by the way that you came.” 18 Then the other[a] said to him, “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the word of the Lord: Bring him back with you into your house so that he may eat food and drink water.” But he was deceiving him. 19 Then the man of God[b] went back with him, and ate food and drank water in his house.

The old prophet pretends an angel told him the word of the Lord, the Lord himself doesn't do that.

SCHIZO FIGHT

>>18619375
>when the Bible talks about things like love and loving others, do you think it's referring to some other alternate world, alien version of it that exists in a world that is different to ours in which the humans there experience emotions totally differently and somehow don't realize that raping someone is them being unloving or something?
It clearly is because the God of love brutally kills people all the time and tortures them forever. You have to believe that when God is referred to as good or love that it means those words differently than we do. This is a world where women were second class and slavery was totally normal. Exodus 21 says you can sell your daughter into slavery, this apparently isn't incompatible with love.
>do you think humans just had a magical mental upgrade at some point because of arbitrary time passing or what?
You seem to think this at least partially or you wouldn't think Jesus condemning it would be totally unthinkable.
>obviously, which is why Jesus never commands it
He just allows it and talks about it like it's totally normal and unobjectionable and makes it clear that treating a slave as anything other than a slave would be ridiculous.

>>18619392
>>18619405
>only God is actually allowed to harm or kill anyone because He is God and has perfect understanding whereas humans do not
We're going in circles now. God has perfect understanding, so if he told you to rape someone, the correct thing to do is to have faith that the command makes sense and is actually good.
>the Bible never actually describes Hell as a place with elaborate tortures or what it really entails
It describes it as torment forever.
>laws to manage human societies
How is this not interfering with free will? At this point you would have to argue slavery was actually necessary for God.
>The fact that following Jesus or not is a choice shows that it is a motivation of His. The fact that Jesus is not a conqueror who just takes over the world
It's not really a choice though, he is going to torture you forever if you don't choose correctly. Luke 19:27
>But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me
>You are intentionally misunderstanding extreme figurative language used to make a point.
My point is Jesus' message is disruptive and hard to follow. He also says you can't get divorced. He says to give away all your wealth. "Don't own slaves" would not be some impossibly out of field thing for him to say, if that were something he cared about.
>Paul is advising how to live a Christian life on a day to day basis
He's advising how to live a Christian life as a slave.
On 1 Kings, God tells his prophet("the man of God") not to take any food or drink. God, knowing everything, knows another prophet is going to lie to his first prophet. God doesn't warn him and then has his first prophet killed by a lion because he was tricked by the old prophet. It's a set up. God actually speaks through the old prophet to tell the first one he fucked up.

>>18619420
>It clearly is because the God of love brutally kills people all the time
you would have to get into weeds on a case by case basis for every instance of this and then we would argue why God did it in that instance and I would keep repeating that 'I don't truly know but my understanding of God says it must have some reason I don't understand and/or here is an explanation in line with it' and then you would go 'nuh uh, he's an angry bronze age storm god being malevolent for no reason and that's all there is to it' every time and we would reach an impasse over and over. All I can tell you is that I simply just know God is not as you characterize Him based on those OT passages and that how He is described in the NT is in accord with my experience of Him.
>This is a world where women were second class and slavery was totally normal
The only reason we are not in that world anymore is because of Jesus' teachings and inspired individuals who applied them on a societal level in later centuries. The atheist worldview meanwhile spawned eugenics, fascism and general societal malaise and atomization of the individual, uncaring about suffering on a larger scale. The concept of a charity itself was invented by Christians and most of them have Christian origins, even hospitals were invented by Christians. Do you think Jesus didn't forsee this? What do you think he was talking about when referring to people bearing fruit and God's kingdom on Earth being like a seed that would blossom into a tree with fruit? Just arbitrary doctrinal adherence and people being ascetic in a cellar somewhere?
>You seem to think this at least partially or you wouldn't think Jesus condemning it would be totally unthinkable.
see the above answer; yes you're correct however the difference is I believe humans basically always psychologically were the same and always had the capacity to morally improve/overcome socialization (via God's help) whereas you think ancient humans were literally different

>>18619422
>We're going in circles now. God has perfect understanding, so if he told you to rape someone, the correct thing to do is to have faith that the command makes sense and is actually good.
It is not in God's nature so it's an absurd proposition. If I heard a voice claiming to be God telling me to rape someone I'd just say the Jesus Prayer and ask for spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit, since it would be so out of character for my understanding of God that He'd do that.
>It describes it as torment forever.
it describes Hell sometimes as an unquenchable fire and a place prepared for Satan and his angels to be tormented and sometimes as a place of annihilation and eternal destruction. It's never completely specific about what exactly Hell is and then there is the 'outer darkness' referred to where souls will be cast out into it. Clearly, salvation does not require fully understanding what exactly it is, just that you avoid it. Since God is the source of life and goodness, Hell is possibly what some kind of separation from that is.

>How is this not interfering with free will?
the humans are the ones enforcing and managing the laws
>At this point you would have to argue slavery was actually necessary for God
why?
>Luke 19:27
is about those who know who He is and willingly reject him anyway
>"Don't own slaves" would not be some impossibly out of field thing for him to say
the entire society/economy relied upon it. Furthermore, unlike giving up your wealth to the poor, simply not owning slaves wouldn't really help anyone in such a society since said slaves would just end up with other masters, Christians not owning slaves wouldn't somehow dismantle the institution of slavery on a macro-scale; it's only after enough societal change (driven by theology) did it happen

you're just wrong about 1 Kings, the point of that story is the man should have listened to God instead of the old prophet, he had already heard God's voice and listened to the old man anyway

>>18607874
Is implies ought.

>>18619507
>>18619516
>'I don't truly know but my understanding of God says it must have some reason I don't understand and/or here is an explanation in line with it
I don't know what part of this you aren't understanding. If you are already conceding to God that anything he does, even things which you yourself cannot reconcile with your understanding of him, are good for reasons you don't understand, you cannot say "God would never tell me to do X", because you truly have no idea. If God told you to rape someone and you said "no, that doesn't sound like God", it just means you have a disagreement with God. When Abraham was told to sacrifice his son, should he have said "no, that doesn't sound like God" and refused to do it?
>The only reason we are not in that world anymore is because of Jesus' teachings and inspired individuals who applied them on a societal level in later centuries.
It's actually in spite of Christianity and frequently in opposition to it. Christianity has been on the opposite side of just about every social issue you can name. In cases in which they occasionally stumble into the the right position, such as in slavery, they do so by going against the orthodoxy and by arguing explicitly against what the bible says. American abolitionists eventually gave up on trying to use the bible to argue this point because they lost every single time.
>On hell
>They will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever.
>the humans are the ones enforcing and managing the laws
At this point I think you might be confused. You said God couldn't include a prohibition against slavery because that would somehow infringe on free will. I pointed out he gives out tons of prohibitions, and you're saying those don't count because humans are enforcing them? Who else would?

>>18619516
>Luke 19:27
Yeah I know what it's about. Free will doesn't meaningfully exist if the two options are "follow me or burn"
>the entire society/economy relied upon it.
This is not true among the early church lmao. Even if you take Acts seriously there were about 5000 followers a year after Jesus' death. Them not being allowed to own slaves wouldn't have caused them to collapse. I have no idea why you are presenting Jesus as if he is a politician trying to thread a needle on this and only this issue. In John 6 his teachings actually lose him followers and he doesn't moderate at any point.
>Furthermore, unlike giving up your wealth to the poor, simply not owning slaves wouldn't really help anyone in such a society since said slaves would just end up with other masters, Christians not owning slaves wouldn't somehow dismantle the institution of slavery on a macro-scale
There is no way you actually believe this is a reasonable point. People still to this day get divorced, maybe Jesus shouldn't have included that one in there since it wouldn't have ended divorce right then and there. I don't think "don't do things if they're hard and won't work immediately" was part of his sermon.
> the point of that story is the man should have listened to God instead of the old prophet, he had already heard God's voice and listened to the old man anyway
He was literally tricked, and then punished for being lied to. God, presumably, knew this would happen, and did nothing to warn him about it. He didn't even punish the guy who tricked him. 1 Kings 13 is actually maybe completely indefensible. There are defenses, not good ones, but still, for other bible stories, but 1 Kings 13 is literally just God setting a guy up to fail.

>>18618922
>People act violently on all kinds of whims, why would it have to be different in this case?
It wouldn't. The issue is that even if we assume the supposed extreme preference against gay rape you still have two relevant choices on how to proceed: 1)act violently to the gay rape or 2) not. And we need to know why your action wouldn't just be 2) here.
>You said it, it would be weird for people to act this way about apples. But I don't think it would be weird in case of rape
When people get raped they usually just submit to avoid enraging the rapist that just overpowered them or they might freeze out of shock or they might fight back but only by screaming loudly, etc. It's not unusual at all to do nothing physically violent even if you absolutely hate the rape you are enduring. Your preference is clearly not enough to determine the action you take

>>18607874
Do you think Chinese or Japanese people getting raped by muslims are bothered by it? They're like 80% atheist. We have data which you're ignoring...

>>18619948
Can you show me that data? Also being bothered by something is not the same thing as having moral qualms about it

>>18619961
How do you empirically investigate if someone is "bothered" by a rape or have "moral qualms"?