Non-theistic Moral Realism

[shunyadragon]

You really are stupid. If you love your wife as yourself, and practice the golden rule are you going to rape her? And remember your faith teaches that God will torment the Jews with fire for rejecting Jesus.

Side stepping the problems at hand and changing the subject, and mindless name calling. It is a fact of Biblical scripture, and the facts of history, that rape and wife rape is condoned and allowed in Christian cultures up untill the twentieth century, and early court decisions in the USA justified 'wife rape' based on Biblical references. It is secular movements in the world that led to legislation against 'wife rape,' first in communist countries.

[Adrift]

We are speaking of Non-theistic Moral Realism, please try to stay on topic. And I know of no New Testament principle or teaching that would condone wife rape, just the opposite. If you love your wife as yourself you will not rape her - period end of story.

Marital Relations in Ancient Judaism that "Judaism was the first legal or moral system to rule and establish that no wife can be forced into sex, even procreative sex." As examples of this, Levine cites Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim 15b,

As Rav Kahana said: If a woman vows: Sexual intercourse with me is forbidden to you, the court coerces her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, as she is duty bound to engage in sexual intercourse with him due to his conjugal rights. However, if she vows: The pleasure I derive from engaging in sexual intercourse with you is forbidden to me, it is prohibited for them to engage in sexual intercourse, as she derives pleasure from the sexual intercourse and one may not feed a person that which is forbidden to him.

Tractate Eruvin 100b,



And interestingly enough, Song of Songs 4:16

Awake, O north wind; And come, thou south; Blow upon my garden, That the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, And eat his precious fruits.

Which is taken by commentators to imply sex by invitation only.

But of course, all of this is besides the point of my original post on the subject.

[Adrift]

The Baha'i Faith condemns rape in all forms for the New Age.

Can you cite from it's holy writ precisely what it says on the subject?

[seer]

Not period end of story. Your challenge was to me what was my definition, and I responded. It actually is on topic when Adrift and you bring up the question of 'rape and wife rape.' As it is communist countries that passed the first laws of 'wife rape' based on secular considerations of woman's rights (NMN), deficient in history of western morals and ethics, and not rectified unitil later based on secular standards of human rights, and not Biblical morals and ethical standards.

You are a deceiver Shuny, we were speaking of Non-theistic Moral Realism, and my point is that it doesn't work. Wife rape is just one example, there are others, like the care for the mentally ill or physically handicapped. You, with your bias toward Christianity, just had to bring scripture into it. And according to Non-theistic Moral Realism Wife rape certainly can promote survival of the species, therefore it must be an objective moral good by that definition. And you have no argument against that point, so you ran once again to the old tripe that Christianity is bad.

[seer]

Side stepping the problems at hand and changing the subject, and mindless name calling. It is a fact of Biblical scripture, and the facts of history, that rape and wife rape is condoned and allowed in Christian cultures up untill the twentieth century, and early court decisions in the USA justified 'wife rape' based on Biblical references. It is secular movements in the world that led to legislation against 'wife rape,' first in communist countries.

You are such a liar Shuny, you are the one who first side stepped the the fact that Non-theistic Moral Realism just doesn't worked and again attacked Christians. That is why I went your your faith where God will torture the Jews.

[seer]

Can you cite from it's holy write precisely what it says on the subject?

We know the Old Testament forbids rape, I'd like to see Shuny's reference for wife rape.

[shunyadragon]

We know the Old Testament forbids rape, I'd like to see Shuny's reference for wife rape.

Where does the OT specifically forbid ALL types of rape?

[shunyadragon]

You are such a liar Shuny, you are the one who first side stepped the the fact that Non-theistic Moral Realism just doesn't worked and again attacked Christians. That is why I went your your faith where God will torture the Jews.

No response on subject.

Still waiting . . .

[shunyadragon]

Can you cite from it's holy writ precisely what it says on the subject?

[Adrift]

specificallyporneian" also includes rape. So, you're pretty much in the same boat as that which you accuse other religions, which is sort of what I expected.

[seer]

specificallyporneian" also includes rape. So, you're pretty much in the same boat as that which you accuse other religions, which is sort of what I expected.

What a hypocrite!

[seer]

Where does the OT specifically forbid ALL types of rape?

What do you mean all types or rape? Your religion does not say that wife rape is wrong.

"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," (Deut. 22:25-27).

[shunyadragon]

specificallyporneian" also includes rape. So, you're pretty much in the same boat as that which you accuse other religions, which is sort of what I expected.

First, False, the Universal House of Justice does not determine the interpretation of 'zina.' It only determines the punishment for violations of 'zina' other than fornication. Read again. The Universal House of Justice must rely on the interpretation of Abdu-l'baha, and all of Baha'u'llah writings for the interpretation of "zina," and cannot make that interpretation by Baha'i Law.

In Islam 'zina' does not include rape, but this decidedly was changed in the writings of Baha'u'llah and abdu'l-Baha in the nineteenth century.

Second, as with all Baha'i writings the other citations form Baha'u'llah, not in the Katib-i-Akdas, and clarification by Abdu'l-Baha in the 19th century forbid all forms of violence against women and provide the interpretation of 'zina' as cited, and not the Universal House of Justice. Read again the references are specific in the interpretation by Abdu'l-baha to include ALL violence against women.

[shunyadragon]

What a hypocrite!

Again . . . Where does the OT specifically forbid ALL types of rape?

[seer]

Second, as with all Baha'i writings the other citations form Baha'u'llah, not in the Katib-i-Akdas, and clarification by Abdu'l-Baha in the 19th century forbid all forms of violence against women and provide the interpretation of 'zina' as cited, and not the Universal House of Justice. Read again the references are specific in the interpretation by Abdu'l-baha to include ALL violence against women.

And the Bible says that we love our wives as we love ourselves, where is there any room for rape or violence in that Shuny, please tell me. And the only reason you went off on this tangent is that you COULD NOT defend Non-theistic moral realism grounded in the survival of the species.