Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[Steven84]

Mark Spence the Dean of S.O.B.E. (School Of Biblical Evangelism) encounters two atheists that were waiting for Ray Comfort and his crew to show up for some Open-Air preaching.

Mark's first heckler was Bruce who ultimately concluded that morality is decided upon by "majority rule of a society." That is the very logical equation that justified Nazi Germany during the holocaust!

Frank said morality is genetic. This logical equation makes a man like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer justified in their actions. They were dancing to the exact tune their DNA was tuned play. By Frank's logic there wasn't really anything wrong with these men...they were just unfashionable to the times. No right, no wrong just DNA and the will to live. Frank ultimately said we need to be more opened-minded to rape...the means would justify the ends according to him.

Mark unravels this faulty logic and reveals it for what it is. Moral Relativism, a view in which there in no real right or wrong...just fashions and changes. A world in which a mother Teresa and Hitler are both validly equal in the ways they lived their lives.

The only way to justify and kind of Absolute morality (which is embedded in our thinking) is to posit a Moral Law Giver which is the very God and Designer of our God Given Conscience that works as a Moral compass...convicting us and pointing us in the direction of the Savior. The Law of God is a school master that drives us to the cross!

Out of the three men in this debate who’s points were the most valid and realistic?

Is there any better way to take on a moral relativist? For instance does anyone know a quicker way to cut to the heart of the issue resolved?

Is there really a “Right†and “Wrong†in the objective/absolute sense? Or is it really just a matter of opinions?

You decide which side you fall on:

To the the Moral Absolutist...rape is an atrocity, it is the epitome of WRONG.

To the moral relativist...rape is merely a matter of preference and opinion. Hitler had his season of being the RIGHT kind of guy.



[youtube:3435tjsl]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_kf3EgU6lk[/youtube:3435tjsl]

 

[Danus]

....He smoked'em.

 

[happyjoy]

OK

What about slavery? Slavery is allowed in the bible, which in turn was used to justify slavery in the U.S. So I guess my question to the moral absolutist is. Is it wrong to rape your slave?

According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the proper punishment for rape is to pay the woman's father then marry the woman you raped and not be able to divorce her ever.

 

[Mike]

OK

What about slavery? Slavery is allowed in the bible, which in turn was used to justify slavery in the U.S. So I guess my question to the moral absolutist is. Is it wrong to rape your slave?

Oh, look where happyjoy popped up!

Happyjoy, I've read many times your argument about slaves in the bible. The problem is that slavery in that time was much different than what we've known in our history. In those times, slaves were actually people who owed something to someone and were paying off a debt. They were free to come and go, had lives not very much different from their owners. They were often well educated. The owners in effect, own their services until the debt was paid off. Slaves generally stayed out of known obligation and out of honor. You really can't use this to argue your point.

The following is taken from: http://bible.org/article/some-initial-r ... -testament

"1. Slavery in the first century was quite different from slavery in early American history. For one thing, Roman slaves were either taken as the spoils of war or were such because they sold themselves into slavery (known as "bond-servant"). They were often well-educated (cf. Gal 3:24 in which the "tutor" or better "disciplinarian" or "guide" of the children was usually a slave). The normal word for "slave" in the New Testament is the term dou'lo", a term that in earlier centuries usually referred to one who sold himself into slavery; later on, it was used especially of those who became slaves as the spoils of war.

2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect, very unlike the South in the days of Lincoln. They often treated them with human dignity and, although they could beat them, such does not seem to be as regular a practice as it was in America. Slaves could marry, accumulate wealth, purchase their own freedom, run a business, etc. Cicero noted that a slave could usually be set free within seven years; in any case, under Roman law a slave would normally be set free by age 30. All this can be overstated, however. The revolt led by Spartacus in 73 BC caused Rome to treat slaves from the western regions more harshly (very similar to how black slaves were treated). Eastern slaves, however, enjoyed much greater freedom.

3. As much as two thirds of the Roman empire were slaves (before the first century it was as high as 90%). By the first century AD an increasingly large number of slaves were being freed?so much so that Caesar had to write up laws that governed the procedure! Quite different from the Old South where only South Carolina had more slaves than freemen (so far as I know)."

 

[happyjoy]

Oh, look where happyjoy popped up!


2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect,

Thanks for answering my question. They have absolute ownership rights over the other person. So indeed they are allowed to rape their slave. So I would answer the moral absolutist in the video that see rape isn't always wrong.

 

[Mike]

Oh, look where happyjoy popped up!


2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect,

Thanks for answering my question. They have absolute ownership rights over the other person. So indeed they are allowed to rape their slave. So I would answer the moral absolutist in the video that see rape isn't always wrong.

This is quite a leap

 

[happyjoy]

Oh, look where happyjoy popped up!


2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect,

Thanks for answering my question. They have absolute ownership rights over the other person. So indeed they are allowed to rape their slave. So I would answer the moral absolutist in the video that see rape isn't always wrong.

This is quite a leap

Absolute rights mean absolute rights. I have seen tons of movies about that time period. Slaves were often raped or forced to give sex.

 

[Mysteryman]

Oh, look where happyjoy popped up!


2. Although the masters had absolute rights over their slaves, they generally showed them respect,

Thanks for answering my question. They have absolute ownership rights over the other person. So indeed they are allowed to rape their slave. So I would answer the moral absolutist in the video that see rape isn't always wrong.

This is quite a leap

Absolute rights mean absolute rights. I have seen tons of movies about that time period. Slaves were often raped or forced to give sex.[/quote]


ahhh, movies is where one is suppose to get one's information. :rolling

 

[happyjoy]

ahhh, movies is where one is suppose to get one's information. :rolling

Well I think you should address the point if you are going to post in the thread, but yes movies are a good way to get information about a subject. Documentaries for sure, but also regular movies. Really is it hard to understand that being a slave was a terrible way to life that often included rape?

The larger point being the guy in the video main false claims. He said that morality is absolute...black and white. He is wrong. He used people modern feeling about the emotional subject of rape to ambush people.

The fact is that rape wasn't a big deal in the bible, but today it is. I contend he is much like all hustlers on street corners. I don't know what he is really trying to sell, but I doubt its Jesus.

 

[Caroline H]

Well I think you should address the point if you are going to post in the thread, but yes movies are a good way to get information about a subject. Documentaries for sure, but also regular movies.

That goes for you too, happyjoy. This topic is not about slavery but your very first reply took it that direction.

totopic

 

[happyjoy]

Well I think you should address the point if you are going to post in the thread, but yes movies are a good way to get information about a subject. Documentaries for sure, but also regular movies.

That goes for you too, happyjoy. This topic is not about slavery but your very first reply took it that direction.

totopic

The point is that morality is not absolute even in the bible. One can rape a slave, or kill in a war.

 

[Mike]

Happyjoy, while you and I would agree "Lost" is a great TV show, I'd say it's not a good way to go through life. ;) Only kidding - kinda... Last night's episode was brutal.

Where did you get your information about the raping of slaves in biblical times? Everything I've ever read or seen has demonstrated a very different relationship between slave and master back then. From what I have read, this wasn't a real problem. And certainly it wouldn't have been condoned by the Christian church. (no priest jokes please) If you can show some legitimate evidence to the contrary, that would be interesting.

Enough about slavery. Sorry. Bad me.

 

[logical bob]

Aren't all Christians moral relativists? After all, God gave commands to the Jews that he didn't give to the Gentiles. Later, he repealed these commands for Christians.

In the OT, he commanded acts of violence that Christians would condemn today. Abraham was judged good for being willing to sacrifice his son, something that would get your kids taken into care today.

For God, it seems the same action is right in some times and places and wrong in others. If that's not moral relativism I don't know what is.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Rape is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. Please, should we even be discussing this!

 

[Danus]

Well I think you should address the point if you are going to post in the thread, but yes movies are a good way to get information about a subject. Documentaries for sure, but also regular movies.

That goes for you too, happyjoy. This topic is not about slavery but your very first reply took it that direction.

totopic

The point is that morality is not absolute even in the bible. One can rape a slave, or kill in a war.

.....................But you did not make that point

 

[Danus]

Aren't all Christians moral relativists? After all, God gave commands to the Jews that he didn't give to the Gentiles. Later, he repealed these commands for Christians.

In the OT, he commanded acts of violence that Christians would condemn today. Abraham was judged good for being willing to sacrifice his son, something that would get your kids taken into care today.

For God, it seems the same action is right in some times and places and wrong in others. If that's not moral relativism I don't know what is.

......you made the point better than happjoy, but you still did not prove the point.

 

[happyjoy]

.....................But you did not make that point

How has the point not been made?

 

[logical bob]

......you made the point better than happjoy, but you still did not prove the point.

It was more a thought than an attempt at proof. What are your thoughts on the matter?

 

[Danus]

How has the point not been made?

It's too weak to the facts.

The bible does not tell people how to obtain slaves or how best to rape a woman. It does not saying any thing about committing these acts. It says what should be done. How people are to be treated fairly. That's all.

So your point was that the bible somehow encourages slavery and rape? It says these things are OK? You asked what about slavery and look here what it says about rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. That's all you said really. Is this going back to the video about morality? Where to we get morality?

The Christian in the video says God and the man on the street says it's all a matter of how one feels. How society feels about stuff.

So, which one are you HJ? The Guy on the street or the Christian? I'd say your the guys on the street. You make up your own morality, your own rules and to defend your morals. You point out something in the bible that says what should be done if a woman of that time where raped and you try to use that to say the bible tells us to rape woman, with little insight into the historical writing of Deuteronomy. Who reads that verse and thinks the bible is endorsing rape?

So you didn't make your point. Your ammo of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 does not go along with what your trying say. That's just talking about the punishment for rape under specific conditions of that time. It does not say go rape women. Today, we have stiffer penalties for rape. We have prisons and DNA test and all sorts of things to deal with rapist. God says rape is wrong and so does society. The guy on the street said it's OK in certain circumstances.

God says rape is wrong. So,which one are you again?

 

[Danus]

......you made the point better than happjoy, but you still did not prove the point.

It was more a thought than an attempt at proof. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Fair enough. Let's look at the thought again

Aren't all Christians moral relativists? After all, God gave commands to the Jews that he didn't give to the Gentiles. Later, he repealed these commands for Christians.

In the OT, he commanded acts of violence that Christians would condemn today. Abraham was judged good for being willing to sacrifice his son, something that would get your kids taken into care today.

For God, it seems the same action is right in some times and places and wrong in others. If that's not moral relativism I don't know what is.

"Aren't all Christians moral relativists?" How specifically? Let's somehow define right and wrong and give me examples of how God or the bible is different today or some how inconsistent when it comes to right and wrong. (Morality). You mentions some examples but most rather broad. Pick one or two and specifically defend the relativism of it and we'll look at how it's absolute.

For example: God told Abraham to offer his son in sacrifice to him, so Abraham complies. You put it to say that Abraham was judged good for doing this. Correct, but God says murder is wrong. We are not to kill. Does God want Abraham to kill his son? NO. We go on to read that he does not allow Abraham to go through with it. He stops him. Why? because it would be wrong. God says killing is wrong. But what about Abraham? where was his moral compass? Should it not have also been with God since God is where our morality comes from and it's absolute? Yes. If it's absolute then Abraham should have said "hey wait a minute here God. I'll do a lot of things but I can't kill my boy! I draw the line right there!" However wouldn't that make Abraham a moral relativists if he did not do it?

So, God is not a moral relativists and his morals are absolute because he did not let Abraham go through with the killing, and Abraham is also not a moral relativists since he did what GOD said because he understood Gods absolute morality and sovereignty. And in the end Isaac was not killed by his father. So we have Abraham understanding absolute morality and we have God also practicing it.