Morality without Bible Doctrine

[Willum]

Jillette Penn said famously:

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

Without a guiding book from God, he still wants zero.

I propose we ask the priests and rabbi of the people who follow the morality of the Bible a similar question.
The Bible has no exclusions for the rape of children, or pedophilia.

It is safe to say I think, that the majority of humanity believes pedophilia is wrong. Yet the problem of religious folks, particularly religious leaders, being pedophiles seems to be a characteristic stain.

It appears that when asked why, without God, what’s to stop the religious community from raping all the children it wants? It can answer: We do rape all I want. And the amount I want is as many as I can. We do rape all the children we want, and even incredible controversy and scrutiny doesn't stop them. It is a taint on the religions for centuries.

Examining the Bible for flaws, we find that bacon is a sin, mixed fabrics are a sin, ripped clothes are a sin, and many other seemingly innocent things are a sin: So we know great consideration has gone into it.

But God in his infinite wisdom forgot to make a Commandment against pedophilia. No sin is mentioned anywhere else.

It is an incredible loophole in Judeo-Christianity, one that seems to be exploited by those who do not have a natural human instinct to forbear.

So the balance of the question is: Why in Abrahamic doctrine and dogma, is the behaviour not proscribed, or is it actually allowed by this all-benevolent God?

[brianbbs67]

There are some things that everyone knows are wrong. Even those who do them. Right and wrong are written in our hearts. Why are we repulsed by incest?

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Is pedophilia prohibited in scripture?

ANSWER Absolutely . The bible prohibits fornication which would cover all sexual contact outside of marriage. Most cases of pedophilia are within the family, the Mosaic Law strictly prohibited sex with any close relative, including ones own daughter or son. Rape of a person of any age is prohibited both by the Mosaic Law and under Christian law.

As well as these explicit prohibitions Christian law mandates treating ones neighbour (All people with whom a Chritian comes in contact with) with godly love. Sexually abusing a child is one of the most devastatingly harmful acts that can be committed against it, so both biblical law and principle prohibits all forms sexual contact with children.




JW



FURTHER READING : RAPE at home
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101982444


RELATED POSTS


What is fornication?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 57#p780257

What kind of acts can be categorized as fornication (sexual immorality)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 62#p780762

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have higher than average instances of child sexual abuse?
viewtopic.php?p=912077#p912077

Is it evil, or wrong, for someone to fantasize about molesting children if he never acts on it?
viewtopic.php?p=1092632#p1092632

Does the existnece of "bad apples" in a religion discredit it entirely?
viewtopic.php?p=1029442#p1029442

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SEX, SIN and ...CHILD ABUSE

[JJ50]

Apparently the JW sect has covered the up the fact that some of their members have sexually abused children.

[Matthew S Islam]

The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero.

Without a guiding book from God, he still wants zero.

It's expected that most people living in progressive societies would find these heinous crimes barbaric, unnecessary, and consequential. This question only makes sense when entertained as a hypothetical scenario wherein rape could take place without any repercussions.

1. The predator lusts after its mate
2. The predator is physically superior
3. The prey is alone and defenceless

Without objective morality, men could easily argue in favour of rape; no different from how certain animals mix together.
Furthermore, most of our history repeatedly demonstrates how ruthless man can be depending on the environment he finds himself in. Most wars in the past ended with the victors shamelessly raping the women they conquered. These are men who wouldn't normally rape, but when placed in an unstable and unregulated setting, show us what exactly they were capable of.

Based on this, I'm having a hard time agreeing with Penn's theory. You can only claim that you "rape all you want" when the option of doing so is actually plausible. The truth of the matter is, you only "rape what you can".

---

I think some more practical questions to ask is why should an Atheist speak truthfully, or judge against himself, or donate/sacrifice anything at all? From a non-religious point of view: you only live once and there's nothing beyond our material world.

Why shouldn't we lie if it gets us ahead? Why shouldn't we take more when nobody's looking? Why donate our wealth to something that doesn't directly affect us? Why help others if we're not getting anything in return?

I propose we ask the priests and rabbi of the people who follow the morality of the Bible a similar question.
The Bible has no exclusions for the rape of children, or pedophilia.

It is safe to say I think, that the majority of humanity believes pedophilia is wrong. Yet the problem of religious folks, particularly religious leaders, being pedophiles seems to be a characteristic stain.

It appears that when asked why, without God, what’s to stop the religious community from raping all the children it wants? It can answer: We do rape all I want. And the amount I want is as many as I can. We do rape all the children we want, and even incredible controversy and scrutiny doesn't stop them. It is a taint on the religions for centuries.

Examining the Bible for flaws, we find that bacon is a sin, mixed fabrics are a sin, ripped clothes are a sin, and many other seemingly innocent things are a sin: So we know great consideration has gone into it.

But God in his infinite wisdom forgot to make a Commandment against pedophilia. No sin is mentioned anywhere else.

It is an incredible loophole in Judeo-Christianity, one that seems to be exploited by those who do not have a natural human instinct to forbear.

So the balance of the question is: Why in Abrahamic doctrine and dogma, is the behaviour not proscribed, or is it actually allowed by this all-benevolent God?

As mentioned earlier, fornication and homosexuality are explicitly prohibited. The religious leaders found guilty of molesting young children have fell into sin and transgression. Have you come across people who justify their actions?

[wiploc]

Without objective morality, men could easily argue in favour of rape;

I don't see objective morality changing that. Often enough, rape has been done in the name of objective moralities.

Which would be better, an objective morality that promotes rape or a subjective morality that forbids it?

Furthermore, most of our history repeatedly demonstrates how ruthless man can be depending on the environment he finds himself in. Most wars in the past ended with the victors shamelessly raping the women they conquered. These are men who wouldn't normally rape, but when placed in an unstable and unregulated setting, show us what exactly they were capable of.

Based on this, I'm having a hard time agreeing with Penn's theory. You can only claim that you "rape all you want" when the option of doing so is actually plausible. The truth of the matter is, you only "rape what you can".

I rape all I want. I'm against rape.

Your no-true-Scotsman argument is off target anyway. You purport to be claiming that objective morality prevents rape, but then you actually argue that organized society prevents rape. The two have nothing in common.

---

I think some more practical questions to ask is why should an Atheist speak truthfully, or judge against himself, or donate/sacrifice anything at all?

I love it when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to make people want to be like them.

Why do you think theists should do any of those things? Not out of the goodness of your hearts, like atheists, but rather in the attempt to get rewarded by gods? That's supposed to make you better than us?

That's hilarious.

From a non-religious point of view: you only live once and there's nothing beyond our material world.

I could argue that, from a theist point of view--and many theists have made this claim--once you are saved you cannot be unsaved, and therefore you can rape all you want without jeopardizing your soul.

That may not be a strong argument, but it's certainly as fair as yours.

Why shouldn't we lie if it gets us ahead?

And you can't think of any answer to that question other than that an invisible eccentric will punish you if you do?

And you think that this moral blindness of yours somehow makes you more righteous than us?

Why shouldn't we take more when nobody's looking? Why donate our wealth to something that doesn't directly affect us? Why help others if we're not getting anything in return?

William Lane Craig makes similar arguments. He claims that he has nothing against rape himself. The only reason for not raping is that his gods forbid it.

I give him the benefit of the doubt: I assume he's lying.

But if he's not lying, then he's a terrible person, one who has no business lecturing people about morality.

[Matthew S Islam]

I don't see objective morality changing that. Often enough, rape has been done in the name of objective moralities.

Which would be better, an objective morality that promotes rape or a subjective morality that forbids it?

My fault. When I said "objective morality" I was referring to religious scriptures. In the absence Divine revelations, one could easily rationalize raping another individual.

I rape all I want. I'm against rape.

Your no-true-Scotsman argument is off target anyway. You purport to be claiming that objective morality prevents rape, but then you actually argue that organized society prevents rape. The two have nothing in common.

Again, it was my fault for saying objective morals.

1. Scriptures prohibit fornication/rape
2. Subjective morals can rationalize why/how a man would rape
3. Society is what prevents man from enforcing his lust

Mind you I also believe that rape goes against human nature to an extent. However, if an individuals disposition has been corrupted, then it's possible for lust and greed to overwhelm such person.

I love it when theists pretend to be moral cretins in the attempt to make people want to be like them.

Why do you think theists should do any of those things? Not out of the goodness of your hearts, like atheists, but rather in the attempt to get rewarded by gods? That's supposed to make you better than us?

That's hilarious.

You misunderstood my perspective. I wasn't accusing Atheists of being disingenuous or anything. I was inquiring as to why an Atheist should be anything but greedy and lustful. The "goodness of your heart" isn't a rational answer.

1. You Only Live Once
2. Good and Evil are arbitrary
3. Just do whatever pleasures/benefits you at the expense of others

Why would you contradict this? Tell me, what's the use in giving charity to an organization on the other side of the planet? How does that benefit you specifically? If it doesn't benefit you, then how do you justify it as rational in light of YOLO? YOLO suggests saving your money and spending it on something that directly benefits you.

I could argue that, from a theist point of view--and many theists have made this claim--once you are saved you cannot be unsaved, and therefore you can rape all you want without jeopardizing your soul.

That may not be a strong argument, but it's certainly as fair as yours.

I don't follow that theology. We believe God is mindful of our actions, sincerity and beliefs. But regardless, yeah, I'd question them in a similar way that I'm questioning you.

And you can't think of any answer to that question other than that an invisible eccentric will punish you if you do?

And you think that this moral blindness of yours somehow makes you more righteous than us?

Nope. I have a logical reason for doing things that don't immediately benefit me; you don't. I want to know why you even bother. You appear to be inconsistent with your own principles.

I believe it's a moral duty to speak the truth at all times, even when it's against myself. Why would an Atheist disclose his faults when revealing them could result in a loss? That's inconsistent with living once and getting the most from life.

William Lane Craig makes similar arguments. He claims that he has nothing against rape himself. The only reason for not raping is that his gods forbid it.

I give him the benefit of the doubt: I assume he's lying.

But if he's not lying, then he's a terrible person, one who has no business lecturing people about morality.

I share a similar view to him. I believe rape goes against our natural disposition, however it is God's Speech which makes it objectively immoral. God dictates what is good and what is evil; legal from illegal.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Without objective morality, men could easily argue in favour of rape

They can do it with an objective morality too.

Why shouldn't we lie if it gets us ahead? Why shouldn't we take more when nobody's looking? Why donate our wealth to something that doesn't directly affect us? Why help others if we're not getting anything in return?

For the betterment of society, and the largest factor is probably improved social standing and increased respect. People like others who are kind to them, they like being able to trust someone else.

Why do people who believe in objective morality do all of these things as well? How objective can morality be if you can always simply ask for forgiveness without any actual efforts to undo the damage done?

It is safe to say I think, that the majority of humanity believes pedophilia is wrong. Yet the problem of religious folks, particularly religious leaders, being pedophiles seems to be a characteristic stain.

Arguably the larger problem is those who are not paedophiles but allow the behaviour to propagate in order to protect the church and it's image. Their conception of objective morality clearly put this as a higher priority than protecting children and communities.

It appears that when asked why, without God, what’s to stop the religious community from raping all the children it wants? It can answer: We do rape all I want. And the amount I want is as many as I can. We do rape all the children we want, and even incredible controversy and scrutiny doesn't stop them. It is a taint on the religions for centuries.

Probably a lot longer than centuries, paedophiles who are willing to rape children will find themselves in positions of confidence where they have access to children. Society cared less before more modern times and also there was less ability to report or do anything about the abuse. It certainly isn't very well documented but to think that it all started in the 19th and 20th century with no historical precedent would be very odd. The Catholic church, to name one institution, has been happy to cover it up and even destroy evidence in order to protect their image and their paedophiles.

But God in his infinite wisdom forgot to make a Commandment against pedophilia. No sin is mentioned anywhere else.

It is an incredible loophole in Judeo-Christianity, one that seems to be exploited by those who do not have a natural human instinct to forbear.

Well until recently, menstruation was the moment a woman became an "adult". But as women are written about as if they are property in the Abrahamic faiths it is not surprising that there is nothing particularly wrong with child brides and pre-menstruation rape. There isn't much exploitation needed, the Bible makes it clear that it is OK.

As mentioned earlier, fornication and homosexuality are explicitly prohibited. The religious leaders found guilty of molesting young children have fell into sin and transgression. Have you come across people who justify their actions?

The Priests that cover for the paedophiles and allow them to continue the practise, never warning the new community they release this predator into. The Catholic Church being the largest (public) culprit of child sex abuse has made it very clear that the organisation itself is evil and systemically encouraging of child sexual abuse. We don't need words to see they the church will publicly justify the paedophilic actions that have so deeply penetrated the communities around the entire world.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well until recently, menstruation was the moment a woman became an "adult". But as women are written about as if they are property in the Abrahamic faiths it is not surprising that there is nothing particularly wrong with child brides and pre-menstruation rape. There isn't much exploitation needed, the Bible makes it clear that it is OK.

Are you suggesting the bible contains any explicit or implicit allowance for sexual contact with prepubesent children?

[Filthy Tugboat]

Well until recently, menstruation was the moment a woman became an "adult". But as women are written about as if they are property in the Abrahamic faiths it is not surprising that there is nothing particularly wrong with child brides and pre-menstruation rape. There isn't much exploitation needed, the Bible makes it clear that it is OK.

Are you suggesting the bible contains any explicit or implicit allowance for sexual contact with prepubesent children?

Yes, women and even "women children" were given to soldiers of the Israelites. And it is implicit in the way women are regarded throughout the Abrahamic text. But numbers 31 has a good example.

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I'm unsure how the language plays a role in these passages, it seems plain that it is very important that the women are virgins, for every married woman and older woman was slaughtered, but it would be impossible to know who was a virgin if they were not prepubescent. Anyone reaching puberty would likely marry shortly after so only those that could have somewhat of a guarantee to be virgins would have to be prepubescent. 'Women children' does read pretty clear though. Otherwise, inferring from the context of slavery and the ability to buy and sell women or for parents to buy and sell women is hardly good news for female children.