re: Virginia’s Abortion Amendment Would Strike Down Statutory Rape Laws

quote:

---

A child taken as a wife against her will is a sex slave whether it is authorized by Allah or Yahweh.

---

That's not what happened, though. You asserting that it is doesn't make it so.

A wife is fundamentally different from a sex slave. A sex slave has no rights, and is used only for sex and is either killed or given to someone else to be used as a slave when they are no longer of value to owner, with no guarantee of protection.

A wife has a husband, not an owner, and has rights afforded to her for her own protection. She is honored and valued in her society.

So no, a wife taken is not a "sex slave".

Also, wives were traditionally not "children". All of the laws regarding wives in the OT were for protections and support for women, and assumed someone old enough to be a functional wife who could bear children.

quote:

---

You are a moral coward to call this anything but child rape.

---

You are being intellectually dishonest to say it's talking about "child rape".The passage doesn't indicate a "child" at all, but the word use (issa) refers to a woman.

It's also not cowardice to deny a false claim. You are simply wrong about this, and I'm telling how exactly how you are are wrong. You aren't even arguing your case. You are just asserting that it's "child rape" without supporting your claim. I've done all the work here. Are you intellectually lazy as well as dishonest?

quote:

---

And again, if you understood what the word "objective" meant you would see the substance.

---

Apparently it's you who doesn't understand what "objective" means. I'm referring to it in the philosophical sense, such as this definition, "In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination)."

I'm speaking to that which exists beyond the sense perception of the subject perceiving it.

Because you don't seem to have understood that concept yet, I don't think this portion of the discussion will yield any fruit until you get it. But when you do finally understand it, you'll see that I'm talking about a philosophical concept regarding the existence of objective realities that exist apart from subjective experience.

quote:

---

Word salad.

---

Are you an alter for Squirrelmeister?

"Anything I don't understand must be a word salad"

quote:

---

So he's still into watching little girls get raped and brutalized by the very men who killed everyone she loved and her goat?

---

This doesn't even warrant a response

See above.

quote:

---

Yet I do condemn it. You support it wholeheartedly.

---

Nope, I don't condone rape. It's a violation of the 6th and 7th commandments. The Bible doesn't condone it, either, but provides for the rape victim and punishes the rapist, forcing him to take accountability for an unlawful act.

Your condemnation of rape lacks real meaning according to your own worldview. Because you lack objective moral categories, all you've got is your opinion. Your opinion might be that you think rape is uncomfortable and unpleasant and not to be desired, but you can't rationally impose that opinion on others as if it is something that is objectively true. You have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to do that.

quote:

---

I don't defend child rape because I believe it to be a moral evil; a violation of God's moral law. I can meaningful condemn it as evil because I can appeal to an objective moral standard to say it's actually immoral--rather than it just being an uncomfortable and morally-neutral action that happens, as is the logical conclusion of atheism--while you have to borrow from the Christian worldview to say it's evil beyond a mere opinion.

Christianity can condemn rape as evil. Atheism can only look at it and say "well that isn't for me, but you do you".

---

My unkind remarks to you have been sparked over the years by exactly this kind of blatantly false horseshite. YOU want to whine about being insulted? You constantly post deeply offensive slurs. I'm going to keep making you defend child rape until you stop being an arse. You even defended genocide in this one. Brought it up yourself and defended it.

quote:

---

My unkind remarks to you have been sparked over the years by exactly this kind of blatantly false horseshite.

---

Why are you making unkind remarks at all? You started with an attack on the Bible (and really God, Himself), and then have done nothing but attack me personally. You may not like me, but you could at least make an argument and defend your position rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.

quote:

---

YOU want to whine about being insulted? You constantly post deeply offensive slurs.

---

Such as? I'm not making random personal attacks like you seem to be. I'm calling out your logical inconsistencies that flow directly from your false worldview. It's directly part of my argumentation, supporting the Christian moral framework while attacking the atheistic moral framework, which is nothing more than arbitrariness.

I don't personally care if I'm insulted. I've been insulted for my entire time on this site by people like you. I'm just drawing attention to the fact that you've stopped making rational arguments and have resorted to personal attacks, which is a sure sign that either your position is weak, or you've simply given up attempting to defend it.

quote:

---

I'm going to keep making you defend child rape until you stop being an arse.

---

So you're going to double-down on being wrong out of spite? That's one way to do things, I guess

quote:

---

You even defended genocide in this one. Brought it up yourself and defended it.

---

I didn't defend genocide at all, because it's not genocide to kill enemies in warfare. "Total war" has never been described as "genocide", to my knowledge.

Just as you wrongfully define taking an adult woman as a wife as "child rape", you are now redefining what "genocide" is to make God look like some monster. It's clear you have a chip on your shoulder.

quote:

---

Because regardless of your false denial you continously deny the existence of any morality or ethics outside of exact adherence to your stubbornly defended acceptance of a capricious and inconsistent God.

---

You're wrong about this, as well. I have never said that atheists (or any non-Christians for that matter) have no standard for morality or ethics. I flatly deny your claim, actually. I know that everyone has some standard for morality and ethics, and everyone, or pretty much everyone, lives as if their standard is meaningful and objective. That hasn't been my contention at all.

My contention is that if you reject God, you reject objective morality. You can still come up with your own arbitrary standard that you think everyone ought to live by, but you lack a logically meaningful standard to use to make moral judgements. That's what I've been arguing this whole time, so I hope it will hit home with you soon what I'm talking about.

Without an objective moral standard that originates outside of the human mind that all humans are subject to, all you have is what amounts to arbitrary opinions and preferences, enforced according to the principle of "might makes right", where what is "right" is whatever the person with the biggest stick says it is, rather than what is morally true regardless of personal opinion.

I have no doubt that you think raping children is immoral and unethical, even "evil". My argument is that you have no rational basis to make such a claim in a meaningful way because, in your worldview, it is nothing more than your opinion, which is no better or worse than the opinion of someone who is in favor of raping children, in the grand scheme of things.

quote:

---

Opposition to child rape didn't come from Christianity but was forced onto Christianity by changing secular morslity. And you, personally, still reject it.

---

This is false on a few levels.

First, I personally do NOT reject the immorality of raping children. Rape of anyone is a violation of the 6th and 7th commandments, as I have said multiple times now. It's an offense against God and a crime against His image-bearers.

Second, your statement about history is just flat out false. Christianity rose up within the Greco-Roman context of pederasty, which was very common in those days, especially among the political and economic elite. Not only do the Scriptures teach against harming children, but early Christian writings like the Didache specifically call such relationships sinful. Again, this was early on in Christianity, not hundreds of years later.

Third, secularism has no objective standard for morality to use to meaningfully judge Christianity or any other religion, worldview, or system of ethics. There is no single viewpoint, anyway, but a spectrum of beliefs that range from identical to Christian ethics to genocidal libertinism that teaches all people should act however they wish. There is no "secular morality", as such, but even if there were such a thing, it would be absolutely arbitrary, as I keep explaining to you.

quote:

---

Civilized peoples have drawn distinctions between combatants and non-combatants for a very long time. Your Bronze Age savages get something of a pass for being of their time but you get no pass. We're not going to allow you to live by rapey, murderous Bronze Age mores.

---

Again, your view of ethics is arbitrary and ultimately irrational, with no grounding in any objective reality.

Even so, even staunch atheists who claim to be morally-superior to "bronze age" nomads still support things like using nuclear weapons to end wars at times. Many even rationalize killing off swaths of the population for the greater good of nature and humanity. Abortion is performed in the millions in the name of the greater good and for the fitness of the species. Your claim about the innocent just doesn't hold up.

Total war has been the way of life for all humanity until very, very recently, and the loss of civilians in the waging of war continues today and is still largely accepted, if not supported, for the sake of winning war. Even with that, the killing of "civilians" in the Bible during war was not arbitrary killing of innocent people, but those who had rejected God and were guilty of treason against Him, in spite of His long-suffering with them, giving them hundreds of years to repent before allowing the Israelites to take over the land.

Democrats want to be able to bang kids. This isnt news.

Because it's all about how to successfully market it to the uninformed masses. Reproductive rights sounds better than killing babies.


It's also why they call killing babies "abortion" and why they call the babies "clumps of cells". Because the phrases "killing babies" and "babies" aren't as marketable for consumption by the uninformed as abortion and clump of cells are.

quote:

---

I don't know what you were thinking when you wrote that but my interpretation is that you'd frick kids if current society said it was okay.

---

You need to reread what I’ve been saying if you think that. Your statement here flies in the face of what I’ve been arguing this whole time, namely that rape is objectively wrong, and that its wrongness is grounded in the objective reality of God’s unchanging and perfect moral character.

It is the atheist who has no rational grounding for objective morality, including the notion that rape is always and actually immoral.

Placating to muslims so they can marry and have sex with children.

quote:

---

3. Atheists do have a rational basis for morality. Empathy. Logic. Reason. Compassion. Consequences. An action is moral if it promotes wellbeing and/or happiness or if it minimizes suffering. Our morality is subjective, just like yours, which is why fields of study such as “Ethics” even exist.

---

You cannot claim that your morality is subjective and then deny that it's irrational, because if morality is subjective, then it's arbitrary by definition, and arbitrariness is irrational. What I think you're getting hung up on is that once you set an arbitrary standard, you can then use formal reason to apply that standard consistently, and because of that, you think it's perfectly rational. You keep forgetting that the standard, itself, is arbitrary, and that's why it's ultimately irrational; you don't have a grounding for your assertion of empathy and other factors provide rational morality. Your frequent assertion of "baselessness" applies to you here.

For example, empathy is an arbitrary basis for morality. Over the past several months, there have been many threads started on the concept of "suicidal empathy", expressing the immorality and irrationality of empathy taken too far. Your belief that empathy is a sufficient driver of morality is just an opinion, not grounded in truth, but in preference, and many others disagree with you.

The same goes for logic, reason, compassion, and consequences as drivers for morality. Not only are those all arbitrary factors driving morality (you could just as easily say that selfishness, greed, anger, lust, and the desire for lack of consequences should be driving factors), but they do not describe why anyone ought to use them, only that many people do use them. You can't go from an "is" to an "ought" by merely describing what you believe to be true. You need to justify it, and you can't, because your moral perspective is arbitrary (irrational).

At the end of the day, all you can say is that all morality is irrational because it is all subjective. That's the logical conclusion of your worldview, however I'm describing to others that God's existence provides a rational basis for morality, which should be a preferred belief because it better comports with what we all perceive to be true, namely that morality "feels" like it is objective, and that we naturally act as if it is.