Why would God say rape is wrong?

shnarkle

Well-known member
Hmm. A consequence of this is God can't know and say that there is nothing wrong in itself which also points to Him not being worthy of the title.
Not really. The higher standard is assumed, therefore God not only can know what is good and evil. More importantly, he must acquiesce to this standard which is higher than he is. Your point goes more to the other horn of the dilemma.
Minds capable of self reflection and abstract thought can nevertheless judge what is good and bad quite easily.
Sure, but so what? Those same minds are simply fabricating these ideas of good and evil based upon whatever criteria they please.
I disagree. The ideas of good and truth and fairness are easy enough to understand. If I treat someone unfairly, have I done something good or bad?
You're not disagreeing at all. No one is claiming that these ideas are confusing. I'm pointing out that without truth, there can be only confusion. Again, the old school atheists understood this, and pointed out that without God, we have to make up our own rules. We have to come up with the superman or overman, etc. We have to come up with a substitute for Christ, the perfect man.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Not really. The higher standard is assumed, therefore God not only can know what is good and evil. More importantly, he must acquiesce to this standard which is higher than he is. Your point goes more to the other horn of the dilemma.

Sure, but so what? Those same minds are simply fabricating these ideas of good and evil based upon whatever criteria they please.

You're not disagreeing at all. No one is claiming that these ideas are confusing. I'm pointing out that without truth, there can be only confusion. Again, the old school atheists understood this, and pointed out that without God, we have to make up our own rules. We have to come up with the superman or overman, etc. We have to come up with a substitute for Christ, the perfect man.
No. This is absolutely not true. It does not matter what Nietzsche's concept was of the uberman. It is not required for a standard of right and wrong. This is where Nietzsche was sooooo wrong as to be ridiculous. Our ultimate nature is revealed through our faults and how they collide with each other, not some externalized concept of perfection. Morality can only be learned and forged through the actions and consequences of our own imperfections.

This reality is expressed in the Navajo rug weaver, not Nietzsche. Every Navajo rug is a reflection of the universe. As a result they intentionally left a flaw in every rug as a reminder that an expression of perfection would negate the reason for the world's existence and would cause creation to fold back into a neutral oblivion without the polarity of need.

As a result of this human truth we are not simply creating ideas of good and evil based upon whatever criteria we please. We are creating ideas of human good and evil as something only expressed, and realized in any personally meaningful way, as a consequence of our imperfections bumping into each other. It will NEVER be an external and non-personalized acceptance of some sterile uberman concept.
 
Last edited:

J regia

Well-known member
Not really. The higher standard is assumed, therefore God not only can know what is good and evil. More importantly, he must acquiesce to this standard which is higher than he is. Your point goes more to the other horn of the dilemma.

Sure, but so what? Those same minds are simply fabricating these ideas of good and evil based upon whatever criteria they please.

You're not disagreeing at all. No one is claiming that these ideas are confusing. I'm pointing out that without truth, there can be only confusion. Again, the old school atheists understood this, and pointed out that without God, we have to make up our own rules. We have to come up with the superman or overman, etc. We have to come up with a substitute for Christ, the perfect man.
But we do make up our own rules and laws, given that the ten commandments etc are obviously just man made since they didn't apply to Abraham et al and their ancestors. Which is why it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to have a sexual relationship with his sister Sarah and commit adultery with Hagar, or for Abraham to butcher and cook his son as a sacrificial meal, or for Cain-an to kill his brother Abel, or for Noah's father to murder a young man (Gen 4).

And Jesus didn't claim to be without sin anyway (Mark 10:18), and only claimed to be a prophet even though his mother and his family didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-58 John 7:5).
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Not really. The higher standard is assumed, therefore God not only can know what is good and evil. More importantly, he must acquiesce to this standard which is higher than he is. Your point goes more to the other horn of the dilemma.
This brings me back to my original question, why would God say rape is wrong, for example?
Sure, but so what? Those same minds are simply fabricating these ideas of good and evil based upon whatever criteria they please.
I'm not sure they do. Even if morality is subjective, that's not the same as arbitrary.
You're not disagreeing at all. No one is claiming that these ideas are confusing. I'm pointing out that without truth, there can be only confusion.
Right. So what truth do we need beyond what we see and obviously understand about rape to say it's wrong?
Again, the old school atheists understood this, and pointed out that without God, we have to make up our own rules. We have to come up with the superman or overman, etc. We have to come up with a substitute for Christ, the perfect man.
You don't have to be perfect to see the harm rape causes, and then say it's wrong.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
This brings me back to my original question, why would God say rape is wrong, for example?
Because it isn't necessarily self evident to some people.
I'm not sure they do. Even if morality is subjective, that's not the same as arbitrary.
Subjective morality isn't absolute morality. The subjective allows for arbitrary morality while absolute morality doesn't. There is no giving and taking in marriage in the kingdom so there certainly isn't going to be any rape either.
Right. So what truth do we need beyond what we see
Truth cannot be seen. Just like God, it can only be assumed. Some would claim they are essentially identical.
and obviously understand about rape to say it's wrong?
The ability to personify truth. The reality is fundamental to the understanding. One's understanding does not stand under the reality.
You don't have to be perfect to see the harm rape causes, and then say it's wrong.
Sure, but that's not enough to prevent someone from raping. One has to be perfect to fully grasp the gravity of how horrific rape truly is.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Because it isn't necessarily self evident to some people.
But why is it wrong to God?
Subjective morality isn't absolute morality. The subjective allows for arbitrary morality while absolute morality doesn't.
If morality were arbitrary, then you would get people in all sincerity saying, no, honestly, you've got it wrong, rape is ok after all. Do you honestly think this would ever happen?
There is no giving and taking in marriage in the kingdom so there certainly isn't going to be any rape either.
Sorry, I'm not sure how this answers my question.
Truth cannot be seen. Just like God, it can only be assumed. Some would claim they are essentially identical.
I'm again puzzled by this. That you cannot have a married bachelor is a truth and it isn't assumed.
The ability to personify truth. The reality is fundamental to the understanding. One's understanding does not stand under the reality.
I don't understand this as an answer.
Sure, but that's not enough to prevent someone from raping. One has to be perfect to fully grasp the gravity of how horrific rape truly is.
This is beside the point and no, you don't have to be perfect to grasp that rape is awful.

The point is, I'm trying to get at why rape is wrong. I'm told by certain Christians it's wrong because God says so, and you're telling me here God can say so because He's perfect with pefect understanding. Still my question goes unanswered. Why would God with His perfect understanding say rape is wrong?

I can say rape wrong because it's non consensual and because of the harm it causes. Would God's perfect understanding give a completely different reason to say it's wrong? What else is there?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
But why is it wrong to God?
That's a different question. It isn't wrong to God. God doesn't descend to the roundtable of human morality.
If morality were arbitrary, then you would get people in all sincerity saying, no, honestly, you've got it wrong, rape is ok after all.
Correct.
Do you honestly think this would ever happen?
It happens all the time. People justify rape all the time. One need only read the newspapers over the last few decades to see numerous examples. There have been examples on C-SPAN just a few years ago.
Sorry, I'm not sure how this answers my question.
Where does your confusion lie?
I'm again puzzled by this.
Why?
That you cannot have a married bachelor is a truth and it isn't assumed.
It's assumed in the same way that men can identify as women and vice versa. This is becoming perfectly normal nowadays.
I don't understand this as an answer.
Why?
This is beside the point and no, you don't have to be perfect to grasp that rape is awful.
To fully grasp it, one most certainly does have to be perfect.
The point is, I'm trying to get at why rape is wrong.
Seemed to me that you already know why rape is wrong. You had a few other more pressing points earlier. What happened to them?
I'm told by certain Christians it's wrong because God says so,
Yes, this would be the first horn of Euthyphro's dilemma, which I already alluded to.
and you're telling me here God can say so because He's perfect with pefect understanding.
No. Read it again.
Still my question goes unanswered.
In point of fact, I've answered your questions, and you've even come around to asking questions which you yourself have already answered quite sufficiently for yourself.
Why would God with His perfect understanding say rape is wrong?
God doesn't need perfect understanding to say rape is wrong. Again, I would suggest you reread what I actually posted.
I can say rape wrong because it's non consensual and because of the harm it causes.
Eating farm animals is wrong for the same reasons, no? Driving a car necessarily results in everything from lizards and snakes to possums, skunks, and turtles being run over without their consent. No one asked my consent to build cities jet airliners, cruise ships either, but are we then going to conclude that these things are all wrong as well?
Would God's perfect understanding give a completely different reason to say it's wrong?
Again, one's understanding doesn't stand under the existential reality. One's understanding is never fundamental or foundational. This is the case with your God as well.
What else is there?
See above.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
That's a different question. It isn't wrong to God. God doesn't descend to the roundtable of human morality.
It's what I've been getting at all the time in this thread.

I'm baffled you say it isn't wrong to God for the reason you give. The ten commandments are directly to do with human morality.
It happens all the time. People justify rape all the time. One need only read the newspapers over the last few decades to see numerous examples. There have been examples on C-SPAN just a few years ago.
It's a shame you didn't give an example. I don't think people do it in all sincerity. People do rationalise their poor behaviour certainly, but it doesn't have a ring of sincerity.
Where does your confusion lie?

Why?
Sorry, but this is getting to mired in the weeds for me to tease the thread of it.
It's assumed in the same way that men can identify as women and vice versa. This is becoming perfectly normal nowadays.
Not at all. The definitions of married and bachelor make this a truth.
To fully grasp it, one most certainly does have to be perfect.

Seemed to me that you already know why rape is wrong. You had a few other more pressing points earlier. What happened to them?
I haven't changed my point here. Rape is wrong because it's non consensual and because of the harm it does. You don't have to be omniscient to see this.
In point of fact, I've answered your questions, and you've even come around to asking questions which you yourself have already answered quite sufficiently for yourself.
No you haven't answered my question. You have not given a reason why God would view rape as wrong.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
It's what I've been getting at all the time in this thread.
Spell it out, but this time stick to it. I answered your questions, and you just asked another question as if the question I answered didn't cut it.
I'm baffled you say it isn't wrong to God for the reason you give.
You keep pointing out that you don't understand my replies but you never say why.
The ten commandments are directly to do with human morality.
True, but God is not a human being. God doesn't steal, cheat, lie, etc. because he's throwing loaded dice. The dice of God are always loaded.
It's a shame you didn't give an example.
They come out of the woodwork every time someone is being elected to the Supreme court. How many times in the last few decades have there been charges of everything from fraternities to croquet players being accused of gang raping innocent girls?
People do rationalise their poor behaviour certainly,'
A rationalization is no different than a justification. They don't see anything fundamentally wrong with what they're doing. They do it in front of their friends. They record it for posterity. They sincerely don't see anything wrong with it. It's equivalent to stealing a paperclip from their neighbor's desk.
Sorry, but this is getting to mired in the weeds for me to tease the thread of it.
Confusion does that to some people. Given that I have no idea how or where your confusion arises, I can't be bothered to play 20 questions, hence my reply cuts through all of that like a brush hog in waist high grass.
Not at all. The definitions of married and bachelor make this a truth.
Not today it doesn't. People are getting married to themselves. Again, a man can identify as a woman, and vice versa. Definitions are becoming meaningless in this post modern world.

Let's take your example of the term 'marriage' which comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate", yet we see homosexuals getting "married". Your married bachelor is no more nonsensical than a gay marriage.
I haven't changed my point here. Rape is wrong because it's non consensual and because of the harm it does.
You are repeating yourself. You aren't advancing the discussion by ignoring my reply to this claim.
You don't have to be omniscient to see this.
True, but that's not the point I made. I pointed out that omniscience isn't fundamental to begin with; being is fundamental. Reality is fundamental. Omniscience knows why, but it isn't necessary to explain it to anyone other than those who don't understand. Again, this is beside the point because one can have a perfect understanding of the argument, and discard it like trash due to the fact that they simply don't care, and can come up with any of a dozen justifications for raping someone else. Hence my point that one must BE perfect. Being perfect is not equivalent to a perfect understanding. Ontology is not epistemology.
No you haven't answered my question.
Actually I have.
You have not given a reason why God would view rape as wrong.
God doesn't view rape. God is not a voyeur. Militant feminists contend that all sexual congress between a man and a woman is rape. Here again, God doesn't descend to any roundtable discussions on morality because they're all subjective, and based upon one's assumptions.

There is no necessity for God to come up with reasons because AGAIN, one's understanding is NOT fundamental, but derivative.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member

Let's take your example of the term 'marriage' which comes from a Latin word which means "to impregnate", yet we see homosexuals getting "married". Your married bachelor is no more nonsensical than a gay marriage.

You are repeating yourself. You aren't advancing the discussion by ignoring my reply to this claim.

True, but that's not the point I made. I pointed out that omniscience isn't fundamental to begin with; being is fundamental. Reality is fundamental. Omniscience knows why, but it isn't necessary to explain it to anyone other than those who don't understand. Again, this is beside the point because one can have a perfect understanding of the argument, and discard it like trash due to the fact that they simply don't care, and can come up with any of a dozen justifications for raping someone else. Hence my point that one must BE perfect. Being perfect is not equivalent to a perfect understanding. Ontology is not epistemology.

Actually I have.

God doesn't view rape. God is not a voyeur. Militant feminists contend that all sexual congress between a man and a woman is rape. Here again, God doesn't descend to any roundtable discussions on morality because they're all subjective, and based upon one's assumptions.

There is no necessity for God to come up with reasons because AGAIN, one's understanding is NOT fundamental, but derivative.
You make no sense to me.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You're the one who is coming up with a word that has no referent, and pretending that it exists. I'm just going along with your assumptions, and pointing out the ramifications.
You haven't actually answered the OP question.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You see, this makes no sense. What are you going on about?
You're asking what reasons God has for opposing rape, no?

Where is this God you keep ranting on about? For the sake of argument, I'm entertaining your assumptions. What doesn't make sense is for you to continually lose track of your own argument.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You're asking what reasons God has for opposing rape, no?

Where is this God you keep ranting on about? For the sake of argument, I'm entertaining your assumptions. What doesn't make sense is for you to continually lose track of your own argument.
What do you mean by where is He?
 
Top