Kay17:


What is the difference between the objective standard and subjective standard?

Joshthefirst:
My God never gave the order to rape anyone. So your question is invalid.

But to continue the discourse, I base my moral standards on the biblical law.

Now here's my question: By what standard do you base rape wrong? Or one reasonable or unreasonable? Wrt his opinion on rape?

No more evading please.

plaetton:


Interesting.

There is indeed a Boko haram in all of us, especially the followers of abrahamic religions.

Joshthefirst:
Saving girls who had never slept with a man does not mean those girls would be raped. Rape was a crime punishable by death in Israel.


And Mary never gave her consent? Really? Even when she said "let it be unto me as thou has said"?

KingEbukasBlog:


Knee-jerk response - in its actual sense .

We have a new covenant with God through Christ . Such happened during that dispensation and is not obtainable now .

plaetton:


Just look at this moral schizophrenic.

He now wants to play on the word " to save" .

Saving virgins for oneself means what it means, ..for one's edification and enjoyment, obviously without the consent of the virgin victim or victims.

Again you lie Josh.

Rappists were required to marry their victims.

That is hardly a disincentive to rape.

...Critics of the Bible are quick to point to Numbers 31 (and other similar passages) in which the Israelites were allowed to take female captives from nations they conquered. Critics make the accusation that this is an example of the Bible condoning, or even promoting, rape. However, the passage says nothing about raping the captive women. It is wrong to assume that the captive women were to be raped. Again, Deuteronomy 22:25-27 condemns rape, even advocating the death penalty for perpetrators of rape. In the Numbers 31 passage the soldiers were commanded to purify themselves and their captives (verse 19). Rape would have violated this command (see Leviticus 15:16-18). The women who were taken captive are never referred to as sexual objects. Did the captive women likely eventually marry amongst the Israelites? Yes. Is there any indication that rape or sex slavery was forced upon the women? Absolutely not.

plaetton:


Did your Yahweh not command Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites,not to leave anything alive, especially the women and children ?

Now please try to justify it, and then tell me in what ways you are different from Boko haram and ISIS in terms of your mindset.

The Amalekites’ unrelenting brutality toward the Israelites began with an attack at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–13). This is recounted in Deuteronomy 25:17–19 with this admonition: “Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind [typically women and children]: they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!”

plaetton:


In other words, God and his morality went through a transformation, a repentance, being born anew with the new covenant.
Right sir?

Joshthefirst:




Source

KingEbukasBlog:


You are missing the point here . The wages of Sin still remains death - no eternal life of peace and Joy with God and a separation from a separation of soul and body from God - and Christ's death and shed blood came to replace the sacrifices of animals or death by your own blood .

The purpose is for Man and has nothing to do with God's behavior

plaetton:


Oh gosh,

It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

plaetton:


Oh gosh,

It's just hard to believe sometimes that actually discuss and debate with moral schizophrenics who would twist anything to justify self evident evil.

plaetton:


I think you're still confused and living in denial.

Yahweh was bad and evil.
Jesus came to do a makeover.
Then Yahweh repented and became a good loving god.
Not so?

Joshthefirst:
You've betrayed yourself.

Evil and good are self-evident. Inspite of your hypocritical statements otherwise.

Evil and good are self-evident in our consciousness because there exists a moral law-giver.
This moral lawgiver is God.

KingEbukasBlog:



Religion . As a former Christian , your religious foundation laid was your guide to discern between right or wrong . True or true ?

Joshthefirst:
Are you a moral relativist?

plaetton:


If God is the moral law giver, and the Bible clearly shows us God's moral thresholds, re: the promotion of covetousness, looting, rape and genocide.

Joshthefirst:
Saving girls who had never slept with a man does not mean those girls would be raped. Rape was a crime punishable by death in Israel.

Joshthefirst:

And Mary never gave her consent? Really? Even when she said "let it be unto me as thou has said"?

Kay17:


Morality is like the elephant which was examined by the blind men.

Joshthefirst:
Coming from a man who can't tell by what standard he calls an act right and another wrong. How convenient.

Joshthefirst:
Answer the question thehomer

thehomer:


What do you think it meant? Rape of women captured during war wasn't.



Okay. She gave her consent but it appears that she did so because she was a female slave.

thehomer:

I told you. Besides at the very least, I know that genocide is wrong. You don't. And that makes you morally bankrupt.

Joshthefirst:
Why do you now say if?

As for the bolded, The bible clearly shows us God's supremacy in his issuing of the ten commandments, the law, and in his justice of the nations.


It doesn't matter if you choose to deny this, as by your statement of the self evidence of good and evil, you have finally stated your true position on morality, and I'm glad to say its the right one.

Joshthefirst:
An objective standard is unchanging. It remains the same irrespective of what we think or say or do.

A subjective standard is only made up for convenience of its proponent.

Joshthefirst:
So you have yet to understand your position on the nature of morality?

Joshthefirst:
Very funny.


No, you did not really tell me, you only gave an ambiguous statement.

But from what you say now, I suspect you go in the way of plaetton and finally accede the self evidence of good and evil. Nice. wiegraf is next. I hope deepsight gets hope and happiness in seeing his boys finally embrace truth.

plaetton:


No, slowpoke.

The norms of my society existed long before the advent of Christianity on African soil.

Infact, as a child, the schizophrenic nature of Christian morality was one the key reasons that I had always found Christianity suspect, a religion that made no sense whatsoever.

Kay17:


To my understanding, objective standard is self evident and present independent of any agent. Whilst a subjective standard is dependent on an agent not necessarily for it's convenience.

plaetton:


Even in the so called 10 commandments, Yahweh is later found wanting, unable to uphold his own moral laws.
He encourages killing, lying, covetousness, envy, jealousy, stealing , looting and genocide.


Moral schizophrenia.
Now , the question is ;
Is God really schizophrenic ,
or ,
Did man, people like Joshthefirst, kingebukasblog, etc, CREATE God with all their own errors and all their own moral contradictions ?

I am inclined to accept the latter as being the truth.

plaetton:


Did man, people like Joshthefirst, kingebukasblog, etc, CREATE God with all their own errors and all their own moral contradictions ?

I am inclined to accept the latter as being the truth.

Joshthefirst:
I agree with the bolded.

The opinion of the Nazi's that the millions of jews they killed were less than human was subjective. The opinion that they were superior to other peoples was subjective.

It is an objective truth that leads you to realize that they were wrong

plaetton:


Listen slowpoke,

I never ever acceded the self evidence of good and evil.
Go back and read my post with better comprehension skills.

I was merely and clearly reminding you that the evil and morally reprehensible acts of Yahweh and his agents are clearly self evident in your Bible.
Do you understand that ?