Originally posted by @dj2becker
It also doesn't mean that raping someone who is not betrothed is a good thing.

You were asked to provide a clear reference where your scripture explicitly states that rape is bad. Not the rape of betrothed women. You claimed that you believe that rape is bad in all circumstances, not just against betrothed women. You claim that your absolute view on the morality of this act comes from your scripture. You have so far not been able to show how you derive this position.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
You were asked to provide a clear reference where your scripture explicitly states that [b]rape is bad. Not the rape of betrothed women. You claimed that you believe that rape is bad in all circumstances, not just against betrothed women. You claim that your absolute view on the morality of this act comes from your scripture. You have so far not been able to show how you derive this position.[/b]

Rape of a betrothed women is still rape.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Rape of a betrothed women is still rape.

So you are unable to provide a reference where your scripture explicitly and unambiguously states that rape is bad in any circumstances?

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
So you are unable to provide a reference where your scripture explicitly and unambiguously states that rape is bad in any circumstances?

So you are unable to provide a reference where scripture explicitly and unambiguously states that rape is allowed in certain circumstances?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you are unable to provide a reference where scripture explicitly and unambiguously states that rape is allowed in certain circumstances?

Once upon a time it was morally sound to stone homosexuals to death, now it isn't. The morality of stoning homosexuals has changed and is therefore not a universal objective morality.

The debate is over, in fact it’s been over for months and you lost.

Move on, if you can.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you are unable to provide a reference where scripture explicitly and unambiguously states that rape is allowed in certain circumstances?

I have never claimed this. What I pointed out was that your scripture is ambiguous on the subject. You are now trying to obfuscate the issue with more underhand and frankly, rather silly debating tricks.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Once upon a time it was morally sound to stone homosexuals to death, now it isn't. The morality of stoning homosexuals has changed and is therefore not a universal objective morality.

The debate is over, in fact it’s been over for months and you lost.

Move on, if you can.

If there is no universally objective moral on the stoning of homosexuals, based upon the new covenant, would you say it isn’t therefore always wrong to stone homosexuals under any circumstance at this point in time????

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
I have never claimed this. What I pointed out was that your scripture is ambiguous on the subject. You are now trying to obfuscate the issue with more underhand and frankly, rather silly debating tricks.

Well it would be ambiguous on the subject of rape if you pointed out a verse that seems to indicate that rape is good, yet you have failed to do so.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well it would be ambiguous on the subject of rape if you pointed out a verse that seems to indicate that rape is good, yet you have failed to do so.

No, the ambiguity arises from the fact that nowhere in the bible is the act of rape itself condemned regardless of the circumstances, something you claim to have gleaned therefrom but are unable to reference.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
No, the ambiguity arises from the fact that nowhere in the bible is the act of rape itself condemned regardless of the circumstances, something you claim to have gleaned therefrom but are unable to reference.

You just don’t get it. Not only do we have the Bible but also God’s law that is written on our hearts. The Bible clarifies if we have any doubt about something. I have no doubt about rape being wrong. Unless the Bible specifically says rape is good you have no case with ambiguity.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You just don’t get it. Not only do we have the Bible but also God’s law that is written on our hearts. The Bible clarifies if we have any doubt about something. I have no doubt about rape being wrong. Unless the Bible specifically says rape is good you have no case with ambiguity.

Once upon a time it was morally sound to stone homosexuals to death, now it isn't. The morality of stoning homosexuals has changed and is therefore not a universal objective morality.

The debate is over, in fact it’s been over for months and you lost.

Move on, if you can.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You just don’t get it. Not only do we have the Bible but also God’s law that is written on our hearts. The Bible clarifies if we have any doubt about something. I have no doubt about rape being wrong. Unless the Bible specifically says rape is good you have no case with ambiguity.

No I get it. Your take on morality comprises your personal feelings provided that they are not contrary to biblical scripture (that scripture, of course, being the personal feelings of the original authors). You choose to believe that these personal feelings reflect an absolute (and thus unchanging) code of morality, and you have no difficulty with the apparently irreconcilable differences between scriptural morality and that of the current popular consensus.

Edit: regarding ambiguity, it is the bible itself that is ambiguous on this, I don't need to make an argument, you've made it yourself in your previous reference. You may be certain thanks to "god's law" in your "heart", but this supposed law is not able to be derived from scripture alone. The bible is very clear on other acts; theft, murder, worshiping graven idols, honouring one's parents and so forth, but on rape, and slavery for that matter, not so much. It is not 'my' case, it is the nature of the scripture that you claim to value so highly.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Once upon a time it was morally sound to stone homosexuals to death, now it isn't. The morality of stoning homosexuals has changed and is therefore not a universal objective morality.

The debate is over, in fact it’s been over for months and you lost.

Move on, if you can.

If there is no universally objective moral on the stoning of homosexuals, based upon the new covenant, would you say it isn’t therefore always wrong to stone homosexuals under any circumstance at this point in time????

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
No I get it. Your take on morality comprises your personal feelings provided that they are not contrary to biblical scripture (that scripture, of course, being the personal feelings of the original authors). You choose to believe that these personal feelings reflect an absolute (and thus unchanging) code of morality, and you have no difficulty with ...[text shortened]... much. It is not 'my' case, it is the nature of the scripture that you claim to value so highly.

We disagree on the Bible consisting of the personal feelings of the original authors. If God is the actual author of the Bible the feelings of the writers play no role as such.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If there is no universally objective moral on the stoning of homosexuals, based upon the new covenant, would you say it isn’t therefore always wrong to stone homosexuals under any circumstance at this point in time????

You’re the one claiming it is morally correct in the OT and yet it is not moral acceptable to you now. The onus is on you to explain your claims and desist from just asking questions in your usual defection tactic.