[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]
So, faith in god is agnosticism?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Is there supreme intelligence and power beyond our comprehension in the universe? In my opinion, quite likely. Does this advanced intelligence prefer that human males cut the foreskin off their cock? Does it really care if they knock three times, turn in a circle, enchant some inarticulate gibberish, burn incense, erect phallic symbols, or not, burn offspring, tithe earnings or crops, knock on peoples doors early on Saturday mornings, baptize infants, honor their dead, put coins over the eyes of a corpse, etc etc etc? [/quote]
Being beyond your comprehension, is it really so surprising that what it would want, ask, desire, do, and how it reveals itself, etc., would often be beyond your comprehension, wants, tastes, distates, and requirements? [/quote]
You could then use that same argument to explain ANYTHING as G-d’s express will, and ANY ancient document as ‘His’ word. Not just the bible. And people invariably do.
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
This isn’t a game of checkers, and no one’s going to show you their soft underbelly…[/quote]
In a hypothetical that was apparently made to suggest society would be just spiffy without fire in the gut faith and religious belief, we came to a point where we’re now agnostic about the evil of rape. The underbelly is soft and vulnerable. That was pretty much all I needed. As far as I’m concerned, the hypothetical is now answered.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I realize that giving the religious an inch in these arguments is undersireable, but when you’re stuck with claiming agnosticism over the evil of rape, you’re not doing your side of the debate any favors. That is, the debate over faithless vs faith embracing society.[/quote]
I recall this occurred some time ago with Forlife, where he essentially admitted that some of the most heinous evils we could imagine would have to be, as a matter of logic, mere preferences entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective, and not morally objectionable. Kind of the same thing here - in order to defend a point, a damning adherence to a grotesque “agnosticism” in the name of ideological purity in order not to concede even, as you say, an inch.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I realize that giving the religious an inch in these arguments is undersireable, but when you’re stuck with claiming agnosticism over the evil of rape, you’re not doing your side of the debate any favors. That is, the debate over faithless vs faith embracing society.[/quote]
I recall this occurred some time ago with Forlife, where he essentially admitted that some of the most heinous evils we could imagine would have to be, as a matter of logic, mere preferences entirely dependent on the individual’s perspective, and not morally objectionable. Kind of the same thing here - in order to defend a point, a damning adherence to a grotesque “agnosticism” in the name of ideological purity in order not to concede even, as you say, an inch.[/quote]
Aye. Do we really have to ask ourselves if “Well, my personal opinion is that_____is evil. But, then again, I know evil doesn’t actually exist” is the stern stuff from which ordered civilization arises? If a society repeats the above long enough, it will be begin to actually believe it. Then, it will actually resemble such a philosophy.
Where did some of our non-theistic, yet faith friendly (moral absolutes, so on), posters go? Always enjoyed their input. I want to say Phaethon, and I believe a frenchman (a teacher or professor) with a forum handle starting with a K. It’s been a while.
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Is there supreme intelligence and power beyond our comprehension in the universe? In my opinion, quite likely. Does this advanced intelligence prefer that human males cut the foreskin off their cock? Does it really care if they knock three times, turn in a circle, enchant some inarticulate gibberish, burn incense, erect phallic symbols, or not, burn offspring, tithe earnings or crops, knock on peoples doors early on Saturday mornings, baptize infants, honor their dead, put coins over the eyes of a corpse, etc etc etc? [/quote]
Being beyond your comprehension, is it really so surprising that what it would want, ask, desire, do, and how it reveals itself, etc., would often be beyond your comprehension, wants, tastes, distates, and requirements? [/quote]
You could then use that same argument to explain ANYTHING as G-d’s express will, and ANY ancient document as ‘His’ word. Not just the bible. And people invariably do.
[/quote]
Well, I’ll decline to respond since this line of exchange is dangerously close to going offtopic.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course I’m agnostic about rape, just like you are. [/quote]
So, faith in god is agnosticism?[/quote]
Very nice. He admits to faith in the evil of rape. Yet calls it agnosticism? So faith in God…agnosticism?
I’m trying to move on, but this was a durned good observation. Very good.
Ok, forlife. Before I go, don’t go getting the impression that I’m trying to beat up on you. It’s not my intention, even if I have a go at topic with some passion. You got the debate you were looking for. You made a topic that got some good, serious, and deep jawing going. Who can’t appreciate that?
And again, ultimately, I think you’re better than actully being agnostic about rape as an evil act. Whatever else we may vehemently disagree on, I just don’t believe you on that one. I know, it’s sort of a dig at you, but it’s also a sign that I think you’re bettern than that. I think you adopted a stance you felt you had to take, in order to salvage some consistency. Besides, as DD has pointed out, faith in something which isn’t falsifiable is agnosticism? You’d make even theists into agnostics with that definition. Honestly, thanks for the topic, but I’m all talked out.
Later folks.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
…While incest is STRICTLY verboten in the law of Moses it was perfectly appropriate for Lot and his daughters, who with God’s blessing, had drunken intercourse resulting in pregnancy, after their narrow escape from sodom and gomorrah.
[/quote]
[quote]Apparently you didn’t study as much as you purport while in the monastery.
Lot’s drunken behavior with his daughters was NEVER blessed by God. If you think otherwise you are free to back it up with Scripture.
Also, another hint that you were playing badminton with the nuns down the mountain and not studying Scripture as you alleged is that Lot predates Moses.
You’re dismissed. [/quote]
36 So both of Lotâ??s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab[g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi[h]; he is the father of the Ammonites[i] of today.
Doesn’t sound like G-d was too upset with this as he allowed the incestuous offspring to form two of the twelve tribes, You’d think if he had a problem with it he would have not allowed the offspring and decendants of such a union that kind of honor.
Can I please continue in the debate now, or am I still dismissed? 
BTW you hinted at the reason I left the order pretty close to the mark. (Women)
I understand that he didn’t bless it, but he also didn’t track the guilty parties down for the recompense his clearly stated law demanded. They clearly got by with a slap on the wrist, where by comparison G-d, in another instance caused a she bear to come out and kill a group of children for insulting one of his prophets, calling him an an old ‘baldy’. Tell me there is moral consistency between allowing a group of men off Scott free from gang raping the wife of a prophet to death in one instance, then killing a group of children for merely insulting another of his prophets in another instance.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
I understand that he didn’t bless it…
[/quote]
WTF?
Busted.[/quote]
Meant he didn’t bless the rape. sorry needed to be more specific, and yes I did imply he blessed the incestuous relationship because it produced two of the twelve tribes…
Wow things get quiet around here when everyone goes home from work.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Vires Eternus wrote:
Meant he didn’t bless the rape. sorry needed to be more specific, and yes I did imply he blessed the incestuous relationship because it produced two of the twelve tribes…
[/quote]
You got to quit posting drunk, man. Lot’s daughters did not produce two of the twelve tribes.
[/quote]
Shit sorry nevermind. You’re right. About the two tribes. And about me being drunk.
Still you’re avoiding the rather obvious inconsistencies of G-d’s dealings with both his followers, and others. You know what I’m talking about cause you’ve had to make defence for ‘him’ on numerous occasions. And while I applaud the effort as I would have made just as vigorously, have you ever asked yourself why you even have to come to his defense?