Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?

[happyjoy]

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

Where does God say rape is wrong?


In the passage I posted about rape the punishment was not for the act of raping the woman. Woman had no value. Her pain, and humiliation were meaningless. The crime was against her father. That is why he had to pay the father. Then to compound her suffering she is forced to marry her rapist.

Is that how we view rape today? No rape is a crime against women not their fathers or husbands.

Morality changes. Morality is situational. The most obvious situational morality is killing. If you are walking down the street and stab a random stranger you will be punished severely. If you are a soldier in a war and shoot the enemy you will not be punished, and in fact may be rewarded.

 

[logical bob]

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.

OK, but you have two different absolute moral standards there.There's God's standard, by which killing is wrong, and there's Abraham's standard, by which the right thing to do is to follow God's instructions, even if that involves killing. And the thing about absolute moral standards is that there can't be two of them without one being wrong.

Seriously, if you think the Abraham story in any way matches your own morality ask yourself this. If a friend told you he intended to kill his child because he was sure that was what God was telling him to do, what would you say to him? Would you really tell him to go through with it in the expectation that God would retract the instruction?

 

[logical bob]

Oh, and happyjoy is quite correct about Deuteronomy 22. The Bible couldn't be clearer. There is a worse penalty for having sex with a consenting married woman than there is for raping an unmarried woman. Do you honestly believe that consensual adultery is morally worse than rape?

Of course you're right to say that this is a biblical command not to rape women. But it's clear that the author thinks the injured party is the victim's husband or father, not the victim herself. In fact, if the victim suffers the rape in terrified silence rather than shouting loud enough then she gets executed.

I wonder if Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was ever used as a way to bypass the usual route to getting married. Fancy a girl? Think she's a bit out of your league? Got 50 shekels to spare?

 

[Sparkey]

Go ahead and try to get as "Tricksy" as you want.
Jesus has already broke it down for ya.

• [list:1b201kon]"Do unto others as..."

[/list:u:1b201kon]
There is zero room for argument here.
We can no longer compare the sin of one man to ours in order to try to say we are "better" in any way, shape, or form. Is the act we are discussing (rape / slavery / [INSERT ANY SIN HERE]) Godly? Are we, or are we not, commanded to be HOLY because our Father is?

~Sparrow

By the way --no law (or word for that matter) given by God has been "repealed" - only fulfilled by the life of Christ, the anointed "2nd Adam", the man known as Jesus: unto whom YOUR knee will bow.

Those who follow after the man who never sinned are given a deal, an opportunity: To trade shame for His uprightness. Nobody accepts that deal unless they believe that:

1. God exists.[/*:m:1b201kon]
2. Jesus is the Son of God.
   [list:1b201kon]
3. That he has the authority to make that deal,[/*:m:1b201kon]
4. That he was resurrected[/*:m:1b201kon]

[/*:m:1b201kon]
[*]And that God will reward those who seek Him.[/*:m:1b201kon][/list:o:1b201kon]

 

[happyjoy]

Go ahead and try to get as "Tricksy" as you want.
Jesus has already broke it down for ya.
"Do unto others as..."

Do unto others is relativistic. What one person would want done to them could be something someone else would find horrible.

 

[Sparkey]

Go ahead and try to get as "Tricksy" as you want.
Jesus has already broke it down for ya.
"Do unto others as..."

Do unto others is relativistic. What one person would want done to them could be something someone else would find horrible.

You will understand that YOUR ANSWER is relative.
I will await your modified reply until that moment when your knee bows to the Lord of Lords.
It is my hope that you will be given the answer you seek from the Holy Spirit prior to your death.

• For you will die, your knee will bow.

With this do I depart - in friendship, Mr. HappyJoy.

~Sparrow

 

[happyjoy]

Go ahead and try to get as "Tricksy" as you want.
Jesus has already broke it down for ya.
"Do unto others as..."

Do unto others is relativistic. What one person would want done to them could be something someone else would find horrible.

You will understand that YOUR ANSWER is relative.
I will await your modified reply until that moment when your knee bows to the Lord of Lords.
It is my hope that you will be given the answer you seek from the Holy Spirit prior to your death.

• For you will die, your knee will bow.

With this do I depart - in friendship, Mr. HappyJoy.

~Sparrow

Have a good day. Oh and that's Ms.

 

[Sparkey]

I stand corrected.

 

[Godfrey]

I haven't time to research the matter, but I would imagine that in that society females were not the owners of property, and an unmarried female without prospects would not have had much going for her (look at the hoo-ha Zelophehad's daughters caused by insisting they be given some land; that one made its way right up through the judicial system to Moses, and he had to take it to the Lord); and a woman who had been raped would not be likely to find a husband. In that context, the command that a rapist marry his victim is the equivalent of a modern-day order that he pay her maintenance for life.

 

[happyjoy]

the command that a rapist marry his victim is the equivalent of a modern-day order that he pay her maintenance for life.

Sorry, but in no context are they the same. The rapist raped her once. When they are married he will continue to rape her. There was no justice in the command.

 

[Danus]

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.

OK, but you have two different absolute moral standards there.There's God's standard, by which killing is wrong, and there's Abraham's standard, by which the right thing to do is to follow God's instructions, even if that involves killing. And the thing about absolute moral standards is that there can't be two of them without one being wrong.

Seriously, if you think the Abraham story in any way matches your own morality ask yourself this. If a friend told you he intended to kill his child because he was sure that was what God was telling him to do, what would you say to him? Would you really tell him to go through with it in the expectation that God would retract the instruction?

You should think deeper. Your skimming the top.

God says killing is wrong. God is where this absolute morality comes from. God is sovereign. Your assuming and adding more to the facts and the real facts to make your point with this. The real facts are that Abraham did NOT KILL his son. God stopped him. The point was never about killing his son. It was about Abraham's obedience to God.

SO, you can not use this story in the bible to say God's morality is relevant. Because at the end of the story God's morality is in tact. So, show me something else in the bible that might prove Moral Relativism, because you did not find it in this story. Did you? If you look at the facts of the story there is no relative morality occurring. In this story of Abraham, his son and God, absolute morality is in tact.

 

[Danus]

In the passage I posted about rape the punishment was not for the act of raping the woman.

Read it again. It's not about the punishment you might want, but it is describing the penalty for rape at that time. You however live in this time. This time is different then that time. At issue is the morality of rape, not the punishment or penalty for rape, but the morality. Wrong then, wrong today absolutely.

Woman had no value. Her pain, and humiliation were meaningless. The crime was against her father. That is why he had to pay the father. Then to compound her suffering she is forced to marry her rapist.

Wrong sir. read it again. It does not say any of what you just mentioned. You are assuming it means that while totally missing what it says and not understanding why it says it. Which is the real message you should be seeking instead of just looking over it.

Morality changes. Morality is situational. The most obvious situational morality is killing. If you are walking down the street and stab a random stranger you will be punished severely. If you are a soldier in a war and shoot the enemy you will not be punished, and in fact may be rewarded.

OK, I'm going to hang up now. Have a nice day brother.

 

[happyjoy]

OK, I'm going to hang up now. Have a nice day brother.

Well good bye, and have a nice day yourself.

 

[archangel_300]

I don't think morality or the moral laws ever change. In fact if anything Christ seemed to make it clear the moral laws are a lot more strict than we think it is. Christ mentioned that not only the physical act of adultery is sin but just to look at a woman in lust is adultery. Christ mentioned that not only murder is sinful, but to hate your brother is murder. I don't think there are any moral laws that have been repealed or done away with. Bearing false witness, lying, stealing and coveting still remain sins.

Morality changes. Morality is situational. The most obvious situational morality is killing. If you are walking down the street and stab a random stranger you will be punished severely. If you are a soldier in a war and shoot the enemy you will not be punished, and in fact may be rewarded.

Killing is not necessarily murder.
In the Bible it is written that the government does not bear the sword in vain. (Romans 13) God has given the governing authorities the divine right to be able to use the sword if necessary, thus killing in war is not murder. Now yes the government may be corrupt and use their power for corrupt purposes, but in the end they will have to answer to God for their actions and their abuse of power.

Now when we talk about God taking the lives of individuals in the Bible, God alone has the divine right to take life as He chooses because He is the one that creates life. Just as the potter has power over the clay to keep some pots and destroy others God also has the same power and it is not sin.

 

[happyjoy]

Read it again. It's not about the punishment you might want, but it is describing the penalty for rape at that time. You however live in this time. This time is different then that time. At issue is the morality of rape, not the punishment or penalty for rape, but the morality. Wrong then, wrong today absolutely.

It is about the punishment. One can not say that a traffic ticket is morally equivalent to mugging an old woman just because both are illegal. I think most people would say they are not.

The entire crime is different now than it was back then. Now the crime is against the woman. Back then the crime was against her father, or husband. That is moral relativism. Now you can argue that God really wants us to go back to the old ways where women marry their rapists, and the rapists just pays the woman's father if you want to, but I think most Christian's would disagree.

 

[happyjoy]

Morality changes. Morality is situational. The most obvious situational morality is killing. If you are walking down the street and stab a random stranger you will be punished severely. If you are a soldier in a war and shoot the enemy you will not be punished, and in fact may be rewarded.

Killing is not necessarily murder.
In the Bible it is written that the government does not bear the sword in vain. (Romans 13) God has given the governing authorities the divine right to be able to use the sword if necessary, thus killing in war is not murder. Now yes the government may be corrupt and use their power for corrupt purposes, but in the end they will have to answer to God for their actions and their abuse of power.

Now when we talk about God taking the lives of individuals in the Bible, God alone has the divine right to take life as He chooses because He is the one that creates life. Just as the potter has power over the clay to keep some pots and destroy others God also has the same power and it is not sin.[/quote]

I am not going to argue whether the the commandment is though shalt not kill vs though salt not murder. Let's just deal with murder. Murder is a legal word. That means one is not a murderer until one is judged as a murderer. That is relative morality.

 

[Danus]

Read it again. It's not about the punishment you might want, but it is describing the penalty for rape at that time. You however live in this time. This time is different then that time. At issue is the morality of rape, not the punishment or penalty for rape, but the morality. Wrong then, wrong today absolutely.

It is about the punishment. One can not say that a traffic ticket is morally equivalent to mugging an old woman just because both are illegal. I think most people would say they are not.

The entire crime is different now than it was back then. Now the crime is against the woman. Back then the crime was against her father, or husband. That is moral relativism. Now you can argue that God really wants us to go back to the old ways where women marry their rapists, and the rapists just pays the woman's father if you want to, but I think most Christian's would disagree.

So your saying rape is against the woman first and foremost....Correct? It's about her. Also your saying rape was wrong then and it's wrong now, but it's just more wrong now? ....Is that right? If you're saying Yes to that, and are correct, then you just positioned your view to moral absolute; standing firmly behind the street preacher in the OP video.

If you watched that video the guy in the street was a moral relativist by proxy of not being a Christian. The street preacher, the Christian apologetic, says our morality comes from GOD and it's perfect. The other guy says; No morality is subjective to whatever a person thinks it is. That's Moral relativism......."what I say is good is good because it's all relative to my own judgment and not that of God." That's Moral relativism. He said there are situations where rape could be OK. That would not make it absolutely wrong, just wrong if we want to think it's wrong.

Your trying to support that view "Moral relativism" and to do that your arguing that even Christians and Gods law is relevant. However, God's law about rape is not ever relatively right, rather it's absolutely wrong. The punishment may vary, but the law, the morality of it, the right and wrong of rape is clearly in tact.

You seem to say rape is wrong. I say it's wrong, and God certainly does not tell us to rape. He speaks to us about sexual immorality throughout the bible that supports his view on the moral implications to this crime of rape we are speaking about. It's never right, it's always wrong. It's absolutely morally wrong and you seem to be supporting that view as well. So now your not a moral relativist?

 

[happyjoy]

So your saying rape is against the woman first and foremost....Correct? It's about her. Also your saying rape was wrong then and it's wrong now, but it's just more wrong now? ....Is that right?

Rape is a crime against the woman first and foremost.

I don't participate in discussions with gotcha style questions. If you want to have a discussion let's have one. You didn't respond to my point. Is a traffic ticket and armed robbery morally equivalent?

 

[Danus]

So your saying rape is against the woman first and foremost....Correct? It's about her. Also your saying rape was wrong then and it's wrong now, but it's just more wrong now? ....Is that right?

Rape is a crime against the woman first and foremost.

I don't participate in discussions with gotcha style questions. If you want to have a discussion let's have one. You didn't respond to my point. Is a traffic ticket and armed robbery morally equivalent?

But, you "gotcha-ed" yourself. You are saying rape is wrong. I say it's wrong. God says it's wrong, the preacher in the OP video said it's wrong. So aren't we having a discussion about moral relativism? Aren't you trying to support moral relativism? How can you do that if you are agreeing with Moral absolute?

 

[Danus]

You didn't respond to my point. Is a traffic ticket and armed robbery morally equivalent?

Ok, let's move on from rape and look at the moral relativism of speeding vs armed robbery.

Your question: "Is a traffic ticket and armed robbery morally equivalent?" answer, NO. Reason? God says do not steal. But no where in the bible does he describe speeding. So, stealing is absolutely wrong, because God says it is. Not because man says it is. Man says speeding is wrong. Speeding is mans law not Gods, so it's relative only to the absolute morality of God.

Let's say you break man's law by speeding through your neighborhood and you kill a child who ran into the street. You have broken God's law by killing, but you did not mean to do it. However you broke mans law which was put into place to protect life which is God's law absolutely. You would be judged on both. So let's say you don't kill a child, but you get a ticket. Well you got a ticket to remind you to follow man's law next time so that we don't have to deal with God's law in that we are protecting life.

So getting a ticket for something and committing armed robbery are not morally equivalent at face value. We still see God's law of absolute morality firmly in tact In your question, relevant only to absolute morality. It's absolutely wrong to steal, but is it absolutely wrong to speed? No. God never said "Hey watch your speed". That's not part of God's law that's man's law, but mans law is ultimately subject to God's law.

Just because we make a law against something does not, in any way prove, that God's law is relative. Show me where God himself lays out moral relativism. You can't do it. All you'll ever find are what man himself says is morally relevant. You will not find moral relativism in Gods law. You may find varying degrees of punishment, but you will not find anything other than a clear line between what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.

Look again at the OP question: Is Rape just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG? Answer: It's absolutely WRONG. It's not wrong sometimes. It's wrong all the time. Let's turn that into your question, and we'll even break it up a bit.
Is robbery just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?...It's absolutely wrong.
Is speeding just relatively wrong? Or ABSOLUTELY WRONG?....It's relatively wrong because it's not God's law only subjected to the extent of God's law which is absolute. God says we are to protect life. So, to the extent where we are not absolutely protecting life by speeding, then speeding is relative. It's relative to man's law, but it's subjected to the absolute morality of God's law. ....kind of like paper beats rock because paper covers rock.