Pants-of-dog wrote:I think my interpretation (that god tested the people of Sodom and Gomorrah and only Lot was found to be righteous) is consistent with orthodox teachings.Your interpretation that God was fine with Lot, except when he offered his virgin daughters to be raped, is not.
So no evidence then?
Pants-of-dog wrote:God does not care about rape, if the owner of the woman is fine with it. The feelings of the woman are immaterial.
Rape was punishable by Death under the Law (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
Pants-of-dog wrote:I doubt this was because of his offer to rape his daughters. More likely, God was punishing his daughters for daring to interfere with Lot’s property, i.e, their vaginas and wombs.
Please Provide Evidence For This Claim.
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as we are clear that God says it is all right to offer your daughters to be raped, even if they are below the age of eighteen.
If God was okay with the rape of Lot's daughters, than why did the messengers of God in Lot's house stop him from giving his daughters to the sodomites and instead blind them with their power?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Unless you consider the Bible evidence, which it is, insofar as it is a collection of myths showcasing the morality of Bronze age sheepherders.
So no evidence then? Just red-herrings? Thats what I thought.
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you refusing to support your incorrect assumptions, and you laso even refuse to discuss the possibility that you made these assumptions.So, I will simply continue to assume the assumpion is incorrect.
Not an argument and I have made no false assumptions. You on the other hand of made lots of presumptions.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, it is fine, as I have alredy determined how to stop you from doing this kind of stuff.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure. Not all criticisms of moral systems are necessarily moral claims themselves.
Well, if they have no bearing on what those system obligate (which is what morality is about), I don't see what they are actually brining to the table that would be relevant.
Perhaps you could give us an example.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Just go back and reread the last few interactions we had.
So no evidence. Got it.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since it is called descriptive moral relativism, that would make sense.
Pants-of-dog wrote:The way I see it, the fact that no one can say that something is objectively right or wrong on an objective level does not matter. We can still make moral judgements other than that. People who mistakenly believe that their moral code is the right and objective one are still capable of making moral judgements of others, despite the fact that their moral code is not actually objective.
Sure. As long as we agree that such moral judgments have no actual objective validity, they are ethically no more significant than the voicing of a preference or arbitrary opinion.
"It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals... is incompatible with freedom."
- Patrick Henry