Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

[popsthebuilder]

Yet all the writings teach the same things for the same reasons. And I have explained that culture and time, greed and fear seem to be the cause of the different descriptions, but the overall message is the same. .

But all the writings do not teach the same thing. The Hindu world view is nothing like the Christian world view, nor does the central God of Hinduism, Brahma, bear much resemblance to the God of the bible or the Quran.

Also keep in mind that there are universal elements of right and wrong, the golden rule, empathy, etc, that are not only common to most religions but are not necessarily related to religion at all.

A Philosophical concept long before either Christianity or Islam for example:

“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” - Socrates, dialogue with Crito.

So many of the common elements between religions are not necessarily related to any religion.

Good point. They are related to the conscience which is hardwired into us for a purpose. That purpose happens to go right along with the writing of ancients who also had a conscience. Without any particular religion? Yes. The will of God? Yes.

The values taught in the Bhagavad Gita are the same values in the Torah, book of Enoch, New covenant, writings of the Bab, the Qur'an, the Exeter book and others.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And those are the same values taught in most children's stories. They're good building blocks for societal cohesion, so you'd expect them to be common and you don't need any sort of divine intervention on the text to come up with them. You also can't just cherry pick them out and ignore the rest and then still say that the books are the inspiration of the moral code as opposed to things which have a few sections that agree with a moral code.

 

[popsthebuilder]

And those are the same values taught in most children's stories. They're good building blocks for societal cohesion, so you'd expect them to be common and you don't need any sort of divine intervention on the text to come up with them. You also can't just cherry pick them out and ignore the rest and then still say that the books are the inspiration of the moral code as opposed to things which have a few sections that agree with a moral code.

What am I ignoring or cherry picking? The books are full of those types of teachings in different forms.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

But all the writings do not teach the same thing. The Hindu world view is nothing like the Christian world view, nor does the central God of Hinduism, Brahma, bear much resemblance to the God of the bible or the Quran.

Also keep in mind that there are universal elements of right and wrong, the golden rule, empathy, etc, that are not only common to most religions but are not necessarily related to religion at all.

A Philosophical concept long before either Christianity or Islam for example:

“One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him.” - Socrates, dialogue with Crito.

So many of the common elements between religions are not necessarily related to any religion.

Good point. They are related to the conscience which is hardwired into us for a purpose. That purpose happens to go right along with the writing of ancients who also had a conscience. Without any particular religion? Yes. The will of God? Yes.

The values taught in the Bhagavad Gita are the same values in the Torah, book of Enoch, New covenant, writings of the Bab, the Qur'an, .

The values taught in these writings are not all good values. Some of the values are examples of extremely poor ethical standards.

Nor are the good values - the golden rule, etc, necessarily related to religion or the idea of God...as shown in the words of Socrates.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

And those are the same values taught in most children's stories. They're good building blocks for societal cohesion, so you'd expect them to be common and you don't need any sort of divine intervention on the text to come up with them. You also can't just cherry pick them out and ignore the rest and then still say that the books are the inspiration of the moral code as opposed to things which have a few sections that agree with a moral code.

What am I ignoring or cherry picking? The books are full of those types of teachings in different forms.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I'm supposing you're meaning something other than the dozens of passages which have been quoted to you in this thread. While the books are full of good and moral teachings, they're also full of immoral teachings presented as guides to good behaviour. You haven't yet presented a decent way to go about distinguishing the two beyond "your conscience".

For instance, if a man feels that he'd make a good husband to a woman and give her a nice life, but she wants nothing to do with him, so he rapes her so as to force her to marry him because his conscience tells him that this is the best thing for her over the long term, was he moral or immoral to do so? Please back up your answer with the relevant quote from a holy book as to why it would be the case.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What am I ignoring or cherry picking? The books are full of those types of teachings in different forms.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

I'm supposing you're meaning something other than the dozens of passages which have been quoted to you in this thread. While the books are full of good and moral teachings, they're also full of immoral teachings presented as guides to good behaviour. You haven't yet presented a decent way to go about distinguishing the two beyond "your conscience".

For instance, if a man feels that he'd make a good husband to a woman and give her a nice life, but she wants nothing to do with him, so he rapes her so as to force her to marry him because his conscience tells him that this is the best thing for her over the long term, was he moral or immoral to do so? Please back up your answer with the relevant quote from a holy book as to why it would be the case.

The selfless conscience would never direct you to rape anyone.

Different example perhaps.

You say a dozen amoral verses have been presented. All that has been shown is fragments of verses that weren't even amoral, but are painted that way by who takes them out of context.

Even if they were; do you know how many verses are in just one holy book? A whole lot more than 12.

You want scriptural support that rape is bad? We've been over it. Even in the Torah which is said to be in error somehow; rape was punishable by death and fine.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm supposing you're meaning something other than the dozens of passages which have been quoted to you in this thread. While the books are full of good and moral teachings, they're also full of immoral teachings presented as guides to good behaviour. You haven't yet presented a decent way to go about distinguishing the two beyond "your conscience".

For instance, if a man feels that he'd make a good husband to a woman and give her a nice life, but she wants nothing to do with him, so he rapes her so as to force her to marry him because his conscience tells him that this is the best thing for her over the long term, was he moral or immoral to do so? Please back up your answer with the relevant quote from a holy book as to why it would be the case.

The selfless conscience would never direct you to rape anyone.

Different example perhaps.

You say a dozen amoral verses have been presented. All that has been shown is fragments of verses that weren't even amoral, but are painted that way by who takes them out of context.

Even if they were; do you know how many verses are in just one holy book? A whole lot more than 12.

You want scriptural support that rape is bad? We've been over it. Even in the Torah which is said to be in error somehow; rape was punishable by death and fine.

I have noticed how you aren't making an effort to back up any of your statements with scriptural references. Yes, we've been over it. When you were shown to be wrong you started calling me names.

Deutoronomy 22:29

Here rape is rewarded with marriage. How is that out of context? The Torah (as well as the Bible and Quran) equates the victims crime of adultery on par with the perpetrators. How do you reconcile that? They also downplay the rape of slaves.

Where in all of this is the morality? I can't see any.

Also "the selfless conscience would never direct you to rape anyone". Firstly this is a no-true-scotsman argument. Whenever anybody rapes that means they aren't really [insert faith]. But that isn't the issue here. The texts deal with how it should be handled when it happens anyway.

 

[TSwizzle]

I note that the quran being used is a version that was translated by a man viewed as a heretic, i.e an Ahmadi.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The selfless conscience would never direct you to rape anyone.

Different example perhaps.

You say a dozen amoral verses have been presented. All that has been shown is fragments of verses that weren't even amoral, but are painted that way by who takes them out of context.

Even if they were; do you know how many verses are in just one holy book? A whole lot more than 12.

You want scriptural support that rape is bad? We've been over it. Even in the Torah which is said to be in error somehow; rape was punishable by death and fine.

I have noticed how you aren't making an effort to back up any of your statements with scriptural references. Yes, we've been over it. When you were shown to be wrong you started calling me names.

Deutoronomy 22:29

Here rape is rewarded with marriage. How is that out of context? The Torah (as well as the Bible and Quran) equates the victims crime of adultery on par with the perpetrators. How do you reconcile that? They also downplay the rape of slaves.

Where in all of this is the morality? I can't see any.

Also "the selfless conscience would never direct you to rape anyone". Firstly this is a no-true-scotsman argument. Whenever anybody rapes that means they aren't really [insert faith]. But that isn't the issue here. The texts deal with how it should be handled when it happens anyway.

Deuteronomy 22 (KJV) - ዘዳግም
29: Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

It isn't speaking of adultery in that case because the woman isn't betrothed or married. Nor is it speaking specifically of rape but sex between two people who haven't been betrothed or engaged.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Deuteronomy 22 (KJV) - ዘዳግም
25: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

That one is about rape of a betrothed or married woman. And the woman isn't to blaim for anything whatsoever.

But to you that's amoral?

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

OK, so you are noting that there's a distinct dichotomy prescribed if the woman is betrothed or unbetrothed. My example was referencing an unbetrothed woman. If he forces himself on a woman and then pays her father and asks her to marry him, is he a moral or an immoral person? By my reading of the text, he sounds moral. Note that he feels that this would be in the long term best interest of the woman to have a husband who'd be as nice to her as he plans to be.

Is there some text where you got the notion that selfless conscience would prevent him from morally raping her in the first place? If you posted that earlier in the thread, I missed it. Could you provide that again, please?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Deuteronomy 22 (KJV) - ዘዳግም
25: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

That one is about rape of a betrothed or married woman. And the woman isn't to blaim for anything whatsoever.

While that's a case involving rape, the command is not at all about rape. It's about penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. His punishment is not at all for the rape, and in fact, the punishment for him is exactly the same if she consented - namely, death by stoning.
The only difference is that if she consented, she was stoned to death as well, for the capital crime of complicity with a penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. It's morally abhorrent.

A more detailed analysis is here, where I explain in more detail why this isn't about rape at all.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Deuteronomy 22 (KJV) - ዘዳግም
25: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

That one is about rape of a betrothed or married woman. And the woman isn't to blaim for anything whatsoever.

While that's a case involving rape, the command is not at all about rape. It's about penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. His punishment is not at all for the rape, and in fact, the punishment for him is exactly the same if she consented - namely, death by stoning.
The only difference is that if she consented, she was stoned to death as well, for the capital crime of complicity with a penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. It's morally abhorrent.

A more detailed analysis is here, where I explain in more detail why this isn't about rape at all.

No, the verse I quoted and that you quoted me quoting is indeed about rape. Some of the others aren't.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

While that's a case involving rape, the command is not at all about rape. It's about penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. His punishment is not at all for the rape, and in fact, the punishment for him is exactly the same if she consented - namely, death by stoning.
The only difference is that if she consented, she was stoned to death as well, for the capital crime of complicity with a penetration of a woman pledged to be married, by a man other than the man the woman's father pledged her to. It's morally abhorrent.

A more detailed analysis is here, where I explain in more detail why this isn't about rape at all.

No, the verse I quoted and that you quoted me quoting is indeed about rape. Some of the others aren't.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The conduct that is describing is an instance of rape, but for that matter, it's also an instance of sexual penetration, and it's also an instance of violence, and it's also an instance of human behavior, and so on.
The OT disposition is not about rape in the sense that the punishment is not for rape (even if the person who gets punished happens to be a rapist). But regardless of how you count the aboutness, the problem is the immorality of the legal disposition in question. A man is being stoned to death for sexually penetrating a woman whose father pledged to some other man; he's not being stoned to death because she is being raped - indeed, if she consents, he gets just the same punishment.

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, the verse I quoted and that you quoted me quoting is indeed about rape. Some of the others aren't.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

The conduct that is describing is an instance of rape, but for that matter, it's also an instance of sexual penetration, and it's also an instance of violence, and it's also an instance of human behavior, and so on.
The OT disposition is not about rape in the sense that the punishment is not for rape (even if the person who gets punished happens to be a rapist). But regardless of how you count the aboutness, the problem is the immorality of the legal disposition in question. A man is being stoned to death for sexually penetrating a woman whose father pledged to some other man; he's not being stoned to death because she is being raped - indeed, if she consents, he gets just the same punishment.

I agree that women being sort of like the fathers possession actually worth material trade and being passed to a suiter by his consent is off. With violation being punishable to the daughter by death for lying about being a virgin is wrong. But that is how life was for women back then. It was also a time of war for the whole region. It isn't right necessarily, but may have been needed at that time with that culture or environment. It doesn't change the fact that in the case of the woman being raped; she wasn't held accountable in any way. Yes women as literal property is and always has been wrong. It may have been a necessary evil at that time. Given the amount of turmoil and lawlessness of many tribes; women would have most likely been even worse off if not looked after closely. I don't know. So yes I agree that monetary compensation for another life regardless of who is responsible is amoral. It still goes on today on many levels. Women get pregnant and sell the child to prospective adopters.

The point was rape though. Someone said that the bible and Qur'an supported rape basically. That has yet to be shone.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[DBT]

The God of the bible is reported to have allowed the Israelites to kill all the Amalekite men, women and children, including their animals, but ''keep the virgins for yourselves.''

It must be convenient to have a God who thinks exactly like the very people who believe that God supports their own aspirations and endeavours.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The conduct that is describing is an instance of rape, but for that matter, it's also an instance of sexual penetration, and it's also an instance of violence, and it's also an instance of human behavior, and so on.
The OT disposition is not about rape in the sense that the punishment is not for rape (even if the person who gets punished happens to be a rapist). But regardless of how you count the aboutness, the problem is the immorality of the legal disposition in question. A man is being stoned to death for sexually penetrating a woman whose father pledged to some other man; he's not being stoned to death because she is being raped - indeed, if she consents, he gets just the same punishment.

I agree that women being sort of like the fathers possession actually worth material trade and being passed to a suiter by his consent is off. With violation being punishable to the daughter by death for lying about being a virgin is wrong. But that is how life was for women back then. It was also a time of war for the whole region. It isn't right necessarily, but may have been needed at that time with that culture or environment. It doesn't change the fact that in the case of the woman being raped; she wasn't held accountable in any way. Yes women as literal property is and always has been wrong. It may have been a necessary evil at that time. Given the amount of turmoil and lawlessness of many tribes; women would have most likely been even worse off if not looked after closely. I don't know. So yes I agree that monetary compensation for another life regardless of who is responsible is amoral. It still goes on today on many levels. Women get pregnant and sell the child to prospective adopters.

The point was rape though. Someone said that the bible and Qur'an supported rape basically. That has yet to be shone.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Actually, a woman who was stoned to death for consensual sex with a man other than the man her father chose (for example) was not at all better off. And of course, it was not necessary for the time to do that: they - the killers - had free will, and they had the choice not to stone people to death for that. They should have realized that the commands were unjust.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I agree that women being sort of like the fathers possession actually worth material trade and being passed to a suiter by his consent is off. With violation being punishable to the daughter by death for lying about being a virgin is wrong. But that is how life was for women back then. It was also a time of war for the whole region. It isn't right necessarily, but may have been needed at that time with that culture or environment. It doesn't change the fact that in the case of the woman being raped; she wasn't held accountable in any way. Yes women as literal property is and always has been wrong. It may have been a necessary evil at that time. Given the amount of turmoil and lawlessness of many tribes; women would have most likely been even worse off if not looked after closely. I don't know. So yes I agree that monetary compensation for another life regardless of who is responsible is amoral. It still goes on today on many levels. Women get pregnant and sell the child to prospective adopters.

The point was rape though. Someone said that the bible and Qur'an supported rape basically. That has yet to be shone.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Actually, a woman who was stoned to death for consensual sex with a man other than the man her father chose (for example) was not at all better off. And of course, it was not necessary for the time to do that: they - the killers - had free will, and they had the choice not to stone people to death for that. They should have realized that the commands were unjust.

Yeah they could have chose not to stone people and been stoned themselves.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, a woman who was stoned to death for consensual sex with a man other than the man her father chose (for example) was not at all better off. And of course, it was not necessary for the time to do that: they - the killers - had free will, and they had the choice not to stone people to death for that. They should have realized that the commands were unjust.

Yeah they could have chose not to stone people and been stoned themselves.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Oh, you mean that they did it out of fear?
That's one reason. The problem is that the Bible implies that the woman in question deserved to be stoned to death. If some people stoned others to death out of fear of being stoned, in some cases that reduces their culpability.

That does not change the fact that all of them could have decided not to stone anyone else to death. Or do you think that each of them stoned people to death out of fear of the others, instead of because they had the same false moral beliefs as the writers of the Bible?

In any case., if Yahweh existed, he would have had a very simple solution: instead of commanding people to stone a woman to death for that, he could and should have refrained from commanding so, and moreover, he could and should have told people not to do that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The conduct that is describing is an instance of rape, but for that matter, it's also an instance of sexual penetration, and it's also an instance of violence, and it's also an instance of human behavior, and so on.
The OT disposition is not about rape in the sense that the punishment is not for rape (even if the person who gets punished happens to be a rapist). But regardless of how you count the aboutness, the problem is the immorality of the legal disposition in question. A man is being stoned to death for sexually penetrating a woman whose father pledged to some other man; he's not being stoned to death because she is being raped - indeed, if she consents, he gets just the same punishment.

I agree that women being sort of like the fathers possession actually worth material trade and being passed to a suiter by his consent is off. With violation being punishable to the daughter by death for lying about being a virgin is wrong. But that is how life was for women back then. It was also a time of war for the whole region. It isn't right necessarily, but may have been needed at that time with that culture or environment. It doesn't change the fact that in the case of the woman being raped; she wasn't held accountable in any way. Yes women as literal property is and always has been wrong. It may have been a necessary evil at that time. Given the amount of turmoil and lawlessness of many tribes; women would have most likely been even worse off if not looked after closely. I don't know. So yes I agree that monetary compensation for another life regardless of who is responsible is amoral. It still goes on today on many levels. Women get pregnant and sell the child to prospective adopters.

The point was rape though. Someone said that the bible and Qur'an supported rape basically. That has yet to be shone.

Peace

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

OK, what about Numbers 31:

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. --

So, after these soldiers kill everyone in the city and slaughter all the defenceless children (in a decent and moral way, of course), what is it that you feel they are doing with all these virginal women whom they "keep alive for yourselves"? Are they buying them dinner? Awkwardly apologizing for the whole "I just hacked apart your entire family" mixup and giving them some cash so they can go and stay with relatives in another city? Or are they passing them around all the soldiers so that they can be gang-raped? I think it's the latter. Could you explain why you disagree if that's the case?

Also, you used the word "amoral" in regards to monetary compensation for a life. That word means that it's neither good nor bad and you can't really make a moral judgement of the action. Did you mean that or did you mean to call it "immoral", in that we can pass judgement on it and call it a negative action?

In the same vein, what would be your opinion of the following actions:

1) The government executing a woman for having a consentual affair while she's married. Moral, immoral or amoral?
2) The government executing two men for having homosexual sex with each other. Moral, immoral or amoral?
3) A slave tries to escape and be a free man insted of accepting his situation and being obedient to his master. Moral, immoral or amoral?