This is not a bait thread, I'm not a fedora; I'm legitimately curious.
I've heard some theists say, in defense of the bible, regarding issues like rape and murder, that we cannot think of them with a "21st century moral mindset", or something to that effect.
What I'm interested in is how historically true that is? Was rape and the like so common-place in the era the bible is referencing as to not cause a negative reaction?
>>1312908
Rape and murder are pretty bad no matter what "centuries moral mindset" you reference, so I'm not quite sure what you are asking.
Generally, where there is a population of uneducated poor people, there will likely be more rape and murder, so some periods of history may have been rappy-er than others. But the universal disgust toward the actions were almost always the same.
I can't think of any society that viewed rape as anything but evil.
Murder, as libtards call it, is actually killing and murder, or, in Greek from the time of Luke, "" and "". Obviously there were other distinctions. Today we have degrees of manslaughter and murder, as one example of modern distinctions formalized over centuries of informal argument and linguistic development.
Now you ask about the difference between modern and ancient morality. You make a mistake in claiming frequency of an event ever integrates itself into morality; that is a flawed Wittgensteinian argument. Also, ancient morality had nuances. Furthermore, modern morality has its nuances. In both time periods, some of these flavors are just downright retarded. For example, a libtard, cleverly disguised as a fundamentalist Christial Evangelical, writing in http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/ says this about when the Bible says killing becomes murder:
>Killing becomes murder when (and only when) it is not properly justified, and the justifications are clear: you can use whatever force necessary to protect your own life from a hostile aggressor, or to save the life of an innocent from such imminent, life-threatening danger.
>>1312990
That's the same sort of retardation that leads to people blaming proactive defense practitioners and calling them murderers, even though the murderee wou'd have been the murderer if the critic had his way prior to the murder evwnt, suggesting the critic can percieve his interference as willful contribution to a society in favor of free murders, ergo he's a hypocrite, more commonly explained by the critic's terminal retardation. And just as terminally retarded people often go on to great heights at the hands of rather amoral patrons, so too have their fuck-retarded backwards ideologies or reinterpretations or historical revisionism gone on to influence the intellectual mode of their generation off of what the next generation will base their philosophy.
In other words, things now are as they always have been, and it is the fault of intellectual repression (oppression in the case of with-held patronage) and the state structure that leads to the masses to view objective evil as existing in a non-absolute point on the moral spectrum. The modern form of this state-sponsored moral relativism is called Positivism, more colloquially understood as "You're Anti-Freedom of Speech Ear-Raping My Non-Free Free-Speech Privacy Zone" or otherwise as it goes.
>>1312990
Would you say then that the appeal to a different type of morality in a different time period would be a poor defense to some secularist morally judging occurrences in scripture like God ordering rapes and murders (or killings, I guess)?
I'm not against religion, and I know that for it to be discussed seriously it cannot be talked about in the ironically fundamentalist brush stroke of some "non-believer" attacking it. I know there are more defensible arguments to make against such claims, but that singular appeal to a historical morality stroke me as really interesting.
>>1313067
Attempting to translate:
>Can a secularist justify his critique(s) to an ideology's canon by referencing "a different type of morality in a different time period".
But what you are actually asking is:
>Can a secularist justify his critique of an ideology by juxtaposing the ideology and its canon?
Plus (because any other ideology also has temporally- and, possibly also, socioculturally-distinct origins):
>Can a secularist critique the ideology's canon by comparison within a different ideology's moral frame of reference?
In other words, your question makes no sense, because the secularist must do one of two things to be making sense himself:
>Claim a poor canonical history says any conclusions thus drawn are false.
>Claim the likelihood of poor moral axioms chosen for an ideology because its canonical history is poor.
The secularist would be judging the ideology by its history, not by its substance. It is like the opposite of death of the author, except here the secularist could only reasonably argue that a bad choice of author invalidates conclusions derived from argument over the author's work's background (the author). This is pretty stupid, and only Charles Dawkins and BDS retards do this. Most of our math and science comes from flawed backgrounds and is made axiomatic after the fact, and the scientific bases are always qualified as being models of reality, not reflecting reality itself, not due to their developments' common history of playing an experimental guessing game but rather as an appeal to the inherent flaw of imperfection associated with experimentation itself.
No wonder I had trouble understanding you! Now, I'll move on.
(continued)
>>1313168
This is how civilization goes, as we sort-of think. First, came some kind of natural disaster. Them, came a desire to organize humans, and some human came up with this idea and revolutionized local society by ordering monuments built. ("No true grassroots revolution.") Civilization is formed and is generally unhappy relative to hunter-gatherers. The world's first IT people are born and invent logistics and agriculture.
The world's first IT Penetration Tester is then born, and realizes a security flaw in the matrix says a human can insert himself as the civilization's progenitor religion's god or god-messenger and dictate whatever he wants so long as he can kill all opposition and not have his word deposed. Numerous cycles of henchmen are killed, but there are always more henchmen than counter-philosophers. Then these overlords functionally become god and order rapes and murders disguised as killings, and they play whack-a-mole with anyone who acts contrarian.
Whatever the objective of the original IT Penetration Tester, his actions lead to the flaws in the systems eventually becoming obvious, even if they would have become more obvious more rapidly by other means, but he's not an optimized robot, so his flaws contribute to human drama and comedy. He is simultaneously viewed as a White Hat Hacker (of human societies) and a Black Hat Hacker, usually under two different identities because more advanced god-kings thought it better to convince you to rape and murder his enemies rather than himself. Unless you were Aztec or Olmec or Maya. But that's why Native Americans are the master race. Anyway.
(continued)
>>1313217
Pretend we are talking about the morality of demodexes. These are demodexes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mATTl3zB1uQ and these are what they cause: http://rosacea.org/patients/causes/demodex but they're actually very nice and healthful for us to have. How would we learn from demodexes? Do we need government-funded research or private-funded research by cosmetics companies? The god-king will always favor the cosmetics companies, not the government-funded research(ers), because his role is not to rule but to die. The powers in the background, as always, and usually represented as the greater gestalt of humanity (but always having physical incarnations), are the real pieces of shit.
Now what to make of, for example, the German Emperor Frederick II, who thought the Mongols were no threat at all? Here he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor#Personality and he thought he should control all power in his government, and he should not be subordinate to the Church. He's a real piece of shit. But he's not the main piece of shit. His actions result in greater proliferation of free cities. Frederick II has no power without his electors. His electors have no power without their supporters. Their supporters eventually stop at powers-that-be. They're the real main pieces of shit, and if you kill all of them, you won't get more pieces of shit until your civilization once again shits out one of those rare main pieces of shit.
This is my philosophy in a nutshell. It can be called my religion, maybe! I just judged occurrences in the canon of all major religions and based my arguments on historical ideologies, sort of as you asked. So no, doing that sort of thing can be a good defense so long as you aren't Richard Dawkins or a fake Palestinian. This is another example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2GwrR-4Q9E
>>1312908
Bible says there's nothing new under the sun.
Raping babies has always been evil, even when Mohammad did it. Repeatedly.
Murdering people has always been evil, even when Mohammad did it. Repeatedly.
>>1313168
>>1313217
>>1313249
Thank you so very much for your insight, I shall meditate on it in enjoyment. I also appreciate the corrections you've made of my inquiries, as you can tell I'm not well-versed in formal communication. Lastly, I'd like to extend my appreciation a bit further to tell you that I'm glad of the IT terminology and metaphors you provided; as someone with a background in IT it made your point even more resonant with me.
>>1313317
>>1313252
you mean when god did it
