@dStoolofWisdom Also, we have no evidence of a Nazareth prior to the gospels, and the evidence they point to, looks and sounds like nothing portrayed in the gospel.
Paul wasn’t even a name.
@dStoolofWisdom Without appealing to church tradition, we have no evidence to him within a century of his life. we root the gospels in the 1st century primarily because of acts, but the evidence looks like luke/acts is a 2nd century work, dependant on josephus. So probably no guy.
@wilwill87@ShadWulf Yes it is an opinion. What isn’t an opinion is that bible god commissioned absalom to rape David’s wives and in my world view that is wrong.
@wilwill87@ShadWulf Yes, it’s subjectively wrong and objective morality doesn’t exist. It’s a terrible argument for Christians when their book has their god commiting to such a heinous thing.
We only outlawed marital rape 33 years ago in the US if that tells you anything .
@Lumichaoss No😂. Most of their theological positions are just really bad apologetics. When dismantled, they default to philosophy god, which isn’t bible god.
@AgainstAtheismX You only gave christianity because of Plato’s republic.
Theres no contemporary evidence for jesus though, in fact the employed evidence makes it look more fictional
@wilwill87@ShadWulf Rape is wrong in most atheists world views, bible god sees it as a fitting punishment, just not to the criminal themselves, and that’s pretty horrific.
@wilwill87@ShadWulf it wouldn’t be considered “raising up trouble”, he also wouldn’t need to “take” them ostensibly against their will, “take” implies it wasn’t consensual.
Consent is a bit anachronistic to the story since this society didnt care and morals are subjective. But words mean things.