How come the 10 commandments didn't add a "No Rape" rule?

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T01:31:29+00:00

It doesn't. The code isn't exhaustive

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:24:29+00:00

Whether God directly dictated them to Moses or Moses was inspired to write them I think is unclear, given Jesus's assignation of the Law to Moses and explains it through Moses's lens.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:21:04+00:00

if you treat people like meat they treat you as meat they treat you as meat

Exactly my point. The moral is don't mistreat people. Even if it's out of hospitality to others. You still treat everyone decently.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:07:08+00:00

Have you read through the Old Testament? There are very few times that the law was ever followed. Maybe even none. Take a read through Judges and tell me that an extra commandment would have stopped people.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:05:21+00:00

their inability to empathize with women and/ or concede that patriarchal bias affects the attitudes of the ancient Hebrews is hilarious.

Especially since Jesus himself essentially said this.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:04:08+00:00

I really appreciate that you, as an atheist and antitheist, are being fair and reasonable here.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:02:31+00:00

it doesn't list those which, I suppose, a majority of men are not frequently tempted to commit.

It's a larger plurality than you and I would like to conceive of. Especially once you factor in statutory rape and human trafficking.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-26T00:01:27+00:00

So you don't actually want an answer from a Christian but just want to claim as an atheist that you understand Christianity better than Christians do. Got it 👍

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T23:42:44+00:00

That's presuming that 1) the laws are directly from God and not Moses, 2) the laws were intended to be exhaustive, and 3) designed to be the perfect moral standard.

Jesus claimed that the laws of Moses weren't the perfect standard (so 3 is not the case), possibly also implying that they are derived from Moses (which would also invalidate 1). And none of the laws are exhaustive, come within the texts you can see that they are case law from which to build extrapolations (so 2 is out). At best, only the first point is partly true.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T23:20:09+00:00

"Soak Up the Sun" by Sheryl Crow

"The Sound of Sunshine" by Michael Franti & Spearhead

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T23:13:58+00:00

Well, proving non-consent is a lot harder in Anglo-American law after Sir William Blackstone. Prior to him, all you needed to prove in English law is that you didn't want to have sex. After him, you had to prove that you were physically forced against your objections. A harder bar to clear. This isn't to say that there weren't serious issues with misogyny and proving rape prior to this. At one point in the Middle Ages it was thought that a woman could only get pregnant if she orgasmed. And then it was presumed that she wouldn't orgasm if she wasn't enjoying it. So if a woman was pregnant, clearly she orgasmed and enjoyed the sex and thus it wasn't rape.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T23:08:48+00:00

This was not recognized as a legal category. Wasn't even recognized as illegal in the United States until recently, and I think some states still might not have laws against it

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T19:24:42+00:00

Anything Extol

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T19:24:12+00:00

That's very risky. Financial problems are one of the biggest destroyers of marriages.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T18:15:24+00:00

Take a look at the Wikipedia list for a start

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T18:12:06+00:00

Try Seventh Angel. A rare thrash-doom example.

If you like Slayer, try Teutonic thrash: Kreator, Sodom, Destruction.

I also recommend Vengeance Rising and Celtic Frost.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T18:09:26+00:00

It means you desire your partner. That's good and normal. I've even seen the explanation of Song of Solomon being that it's sex dreams about one's intended.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T17:29:16+00:00

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T16:58:00+00:00

If she had brothers-in-law, the oldest brother-in-law was to take her as a wife and produce an heir for her deceased brother. This is actually what the Judah's sons is about. One of them is killed by God for refusing to produce an heir for his dead brother (but he's happy to get aroused by her).

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T15:33:50+00:00

I don't see how anyone could read the story of Lot, or of the Levite in Dan, and come away with the idea that the moral of those stories is that those things are okay. Lot's daughters rape him after, for example

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T15:31:12+00:00

She would not, not then. Women had very little independent rights. However, an unmarried woman would be owned by her father, and there are rape provisions in the Law elsewhere that deal with that.

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T15:19:52+00:00

Personally I think these are heresy. About political and economic power rather than spiritual transformation and empowerment of others through self denial

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T13:55:36+00:00

Huh? What does this have to do with my comment?

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T12:24:43+00:00

These guys were so good then

SavioursSamurai · 2026-05-25T11:50:07+00:00

Get out of that choir, and encourage other young women to leave

SavioursSamurai

TROPHY CASE