Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…2829313334…196

Comments

  • #1502
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Then do you accept that any of those women that did not consent to be married but were forced into it were raped ? Is that a plausible interpretation ?

    I really don't know how many times you want me to restate my position. But, I'll humor you. It's a plausible interpretation. As is the interpretation that the women who did not consent to be married remained unmarried, and were not raped.

    That's how arguments from silence work, I'm afraid.

    It's as if someone accused Zombrex of really being a paedophile who only posts in this forum in the hope to strike up messages with underage boys via PM.

    I can't prove that is not the case, but I think that there is another plausible explanation - that he is really a rather ill-informed atheist who genuinely believes the stuff he posts here and thinks if he posts poor arguments often enough then someone might actually be convinced.

    Both are possible interpretations, but it would take a peculiarly malevolent person to presume that the nastier alternative is true by default. Therefore I take the charitable view and state that there is no evidence that Zombrex is a paedophile. In fact, if anyone made such accusations in this forum, they would get a lengthy ban. An argument from silence is insufficient grounds for making a nasty accusation.

    The same goes for those who try to insist that the Bible commands rape, when another plausible explanation exists (except we don't give lengthy bans because we give Zombrex much more protection than we give to the Bible - we're nice like that).

    Innocent until proven guilty. It's actually not a bad principle. You could try it.


  • #1503
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all. I realise you have an exalted idea of your ability to interpret Scripture and of your knowledge of Ancient Near East culture. However, those of us who don't share that opinion of your talents will need something more than a bald assertion that any interpretation other than your own is ridiculous.

    Sorry, I was being specific. Maybe you missed that. The interpretation that what the Bible is describing is women freely choosing to marry the soldiers who just destroyed the town or city they live in is ridiculous.

    You are free to hold it if you like, what ever helps you sleep at night. But that doesn't make it plausible.
    PDN wrote: »
    Actually I stated some reasons why I think it is the more likely to be correct (the foremost of which was the total lack of evidence, other than your desire for it to be so, to support your alternative). I am certainly willing to discuss the subject more with any honest poster.

    Of course you are PDN, you are happy to discuss it with anyone who already agrees with you ;)


  • #1504
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Of course you are PDN, you are happy to discuss it with anyone who already agrees with you ;)

    I'm happy to discuss it with Morbert, and he certainly doesn't agree with me on a whole host of things. But he has never struck me as a liar. He has never claimed AFAIK that anyone here sees burning people to death as a virtue. Nor has he claimed that the Bible ordered the Israelites to kill the ugly women.

    And, as far as I can see, Morbert has never dodged questions when challenged over a statement that cannot be supported. He strikes me as the kind of person who would provide substantiation, or would have the decency to admit that he got it wrong.


  • #1505
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm happy to discuss it with Morbert, and he certainly doesn't agree with me on a whole host of things. But he has never struck me as a liar. He has never claimed AFAIK that anyone here sees burning people to death as a virtue. Nor has he claimed that the Bible ordered the Israelites to kill the ugly women.

    And, as far as I can see, Morbert has never dodged questions when challenged over a statement that cannot be supported. He strikes me as the kind of person who would provide substantiation, or would have the decency to admit that he got it wrong.

    Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?

    The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong, you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense. :rolleyes:

    And you aren't discussing anything with Morbert, you are just constantly telling him he is wrong.

    And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.


  • #1506
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    PDN wrote: »
    I am certainly willing to discuss the subject more with any honest poster.
    Yes, please! I would love to see this. While I enjoy watching the weekly PDN v Wicknight wrestling match as much as the next man, it would be nice to have a more focused discussion on this.


  • Advertisement
  • #1507
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?
    I am not the only poster on this board? :rolleyes:

    I pointed out twice that no-one here had presented burning people to death as virtue. Then Fanny Cradock asked you who had advanced such a position.
    The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong, you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense.
    No. I stated that there was another plausible interpretation, and you failed to demonstrate that yours was the only plausible interpretation.

    I did not claim to have bested you. I simply stated the truth. That two plausible explanations exist and that you have failed to demonstreate otherwise.

    However, I am not surprised at your comments above. They speak volumes about you.
    And you aren't discussing anything with Morbert, you are just constantly telling him he is wrong.
    Do pay attention. I've stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue with Morbert, not that such a discussion has taken place. Obviously that would have to wait until he presents an argument as to why he thinks his view is correct.


  • #1508
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Zombrex wrote: »
    ... just being a nausense.

    I'm pretty sure no one has ever thought that about you> Other things but never that :pac:

    Good word though!
    Zombrex wrote: »
    And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.

    I still don't see the significance of this. You didn't really explain it to me last time.


  • #1509
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And while we are at it, when was the Book of Hosea written.

    My best guess would be some time in the 8th Century BC. Sorry if you needed the answer for a game of Trivial Pursuit and I was too late with the answer!


  • #1510
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I am not the only poster on this board? :rolleyes:

    Oh for crying out loud. So I'm not being dodging you, just other people. I assume these people have made official complaints to you through the Boards.ie channels. No? Shocking :rolleyes:
    PDN wrote: »
    No. I stated that there was another plausible interpretation, and you failed to demonstrate that yours was the only plausible interpretation.

    I didn't claim mine was the only plausible explanation. I said that the interpretation that these women were only married willing is implausible given the context of the passages.

    I've explained why about 15 times already. You don't accept this, nor do I think you ever will. But to then state that I've never supported this is ridiculous.
    PDN wrote: »
    However, I am not surprised at your comments above. They speak volumes about you.

    I hope it does. I hope it speaks to the frustration one has discussing any topic with you when you use such tactics.
    PDN wrote: »
    Do pay attention. I've stated that I'm happy to discuss the issue with Morbert, not that such a discussion has taken place.

    Morbert has been discussing the rape of captives on this thread for pages now. Your single contribution to that was to simply state that he was wrong.


  • #1511
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    My best guess would be some time in the 8th Century BC. Sorry if you needed the answer for a game of Trivial Pursuit and I was too late with the answer!

    And 8th Century BC is before 33AD, correct?


  • Advertisement
  • #1512
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And 8th Century BC is before 33AD, correct?

    If you have a point then why not make it without the muppetry?

    Yes, last time I looked, 8th Century BC was before 33AD.


  • #1513
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    I still don't see the significance of this. You didn't really explain it to me last time.

    The significant depends on when it was written, given that it mentions Jacob fighting an angel. I honestly don't know when it was written, if it was written in the 2nd century AD then it has no significance given that PDN would dismiss it as meaning nothing with regard to Jewish belief at the time of Jesus.

    It seems though that it was written long before that, and as such it is quite significant.

    Of course by quite significant I mean only significant in yet another one of PDN 'prove the sky is blue' arguments.

    The original position put forward was that Jews (in general not every single one of the) reject the notion of Jesus as they believe it is contrary to the Old Testament description of God including warnings against the idea that God would appear as a thing or a human.

    Apparently Jacob fighting "God" in Genesis was supposed to disprove this notion (PDN was working under the assumption I suppose that it was just something I made up), and despite myself I pointed out that these passages are interpreted generally to describe Jacob fighting an angel, not actually God.

    This apparently was another thing I just was making up, so I had to show that it is in fact a common interpretation (for example it is found throughout art of Jacob).

    This was apparently not good enough because I had apparently a claimed that it was the interpretation around the time of Jesus (don't remember doing that but there you go).

    The Book of Hosea mentions Jacob fighting an angel, and this appears to be before Jesus' time.

    But I'm pretty sure PDN will find something more that I have to prove for him to find that "convincing" or "plausible".

    And so the merry little dance goes on...


  • #1514
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, last time I looked, 8th Century BC was before 33AD.

    And have you read Chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea? Does it describe Jacob fighting an angel?


  • #1515
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And have you read Chapter 12 of the Book of Hosea? Does it describe Jacob fighting an angel?

    Yes, and it also, in describing the same incident, refers to him struggling with 'God'.

    Now would be a really good time to read up on theophanies. I was trying to help you earlier - but you slapped my proffered hand of assistance away with a snide remark about long words.

    The phrase, 'the Angel of the Lord' is often understood as referring to God Himself in a theophany.

    Our good friend wiki can explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_of_the_Lord

    This appears to have been an interpretation in early Judaism: http://diglotting.com/2010/11/10/review-the-messenger-of-the-lord-in-early-jewish-interpretations-of-genesis/


  • #1516
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    I really don't know how many times you want me to restate my position. But, I'll humor you. It's a plausible interpretation. As is the interpretation that the women who did not consent to be married remained unmarried, and were not raped.

    That's how arguments from silence work, I'm afraid.

    It's as if someone accused Zombrex of really being a paedophile who only posts in this forum in the hope to strike up messages with underage boys via PM.

    I can't prove that is not the case, but I think that there is another plausible explanation - that he is really a rather ill-informed atheist who genuinely believes the stuff he posts here and thinks if he posts poor arguments often enough then someone might actually be convinced.

    Both are possible interpretations, but it would take a peculiarly malevolent person to presume that the nastier alternative is true by default. Therefore I take the charitable view and state that there is no evidence that Zombrex is a paedophile. In fact, if anyone made such accusations in this forum, they would get a lengthy ban. An argument from silence is insufficient grounds for making a nasty accusation.

    The same goes for those who try to insist that the Bible commands rape, when another plausible explanation exists (except we don't give lengthy bans because we give Zombrex much more protection than we give to the Bible - we're nice like that).

    Innocent until proven guilty. It's actually not a bad principle. You could try it.


    Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?


  • #1517
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?

    I don't know. That would depend how many people read it properly or not. You can substitute my name for Zombrex's, if you wish, and the logic will remain exactly the same.


  • #1518
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't know. That would depend how many people read it properly or not. You can substitute my name for Zombrex's, if you wish, and the logic will remain exactly the same.

    Can I substitute asshole for your name instead or would that warrant a ban ? That post of yours at any time,but in this country at this time is just wrong .


  • #1519
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Can I substitute asshole for your name instead or would that warrant a ban ? That post of yours at any time,but in this country at this time is just wrong .

    Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time. :confused:

    I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

    I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.


  • #1520
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time. :confused:

    I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

    I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.

    That makes it even worse, you could have, but you choose not to.I don't need to feign outrage . And I understand the point full well just as you understand my objection full well . As I said if anyone else said it they would be an asshole and be banned. But of course I am not calling you an asshole I am just picking the most extreme example to demonstrate the vacuus nature of your post.


  • #1521
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, and it also, in describing the same incident, refers to him struggling with 'God'.

    Yes, it does. He was struggling with God and that struggle took the form of him fighting one of God's angels.

    Or at least that is the interpretation common among Jews and Christians that you implied I was making up and demanded I support.
    PDN wrote: »
    Now would be a really good time to read up on theophanies. I was trying to help you earlier - but you slapped my proffered hand of assistance away with a snide remark about long words.

    As I said to you that last time I know what theophany is.
    PDN wrote: »
    The phrase, 'the Angel of the Lord' is often understood as referring to God Himself in a theophany.

    Yes but as you are no doubt well aware the angels that appear are messengers for God, not a physical manifestation of God himself. Angel itself means messenger, the angel of the Lord is the messenger of the Lord.

    Through out the Bible when someone meets this angel they describe it as meeting God, but they are not the same thing as actually meeting a physical God. This is why angels exist in the first place, to Jews the idea of a physical God is nonsensical.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/angel-of-the-lord.html
    Angel of the Lord
    (Heb. mal'ak yehwah). Supernatural being who bears a message on behalf of God. In many passages in the Old Testament, the angel of the Lord is identified with God, while in other instances a distinction is made between the Lord and the angel. In general, however, the terms "the angel of the Lord, " "the Lord, " and "God" are interchangeable.


  • Advertisement
  • #1522
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Why does it mention that Jacob wrestled with God Himself? - Early enough Christian sources such as Eusebius' - History of the Church written roughly at the time of Constantine agree with this interpretation of Genesis, so it's hardly as if PDN is simply making this up of his own accord.


  • #1523
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    marienbad wrote: »
    Am I the only one that thinks this is a disgraceful post ?

    You will find that when PDN runs out of arguments he simply resorts to informing you (and anyone else reading) about how ill-informed and ignorant you are on the subject he has spend so long studying.

    I wouldn't take it personally, it is just an attempt to win arguments.


  • #1524
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Why does it mention that Jacob wrestled with God Himself?

    Because Jacob did wrestle with God. But that fight took the form of Jacob wrestling with an angel of God.

    Imagine you and I had a fight, but the fight took the form of me holding a big long stick that I kept poking at you from another building. You can't reach me, you can just fight off the stick.

    Now would you say you fought with me or "a stick". Obvious you were still fighting with me, since I control the stick. The stick is not fighting you, I'm fighting you.

    But does that mean the stick is some how me? No, of course not.

    Angels are tools that God uses to interact with humans. They are not though of as independent beings to God's will, but equally they are not God himself.

    Or at least that is how Jews (and a heck of a lot of Christians) interpret angels in the Bible. I obviously think all this is nonsense.
    philologos wrote: »
    Early enough Christian sources such as Eusebius' - History of the Church written roughly at the time of Constantine agree with this interpretation of Genesis, so it's hardly as if PDN is simply making this up of his own accord.

    I don't care what PDN's interpretation of this story is. I'm pretty sure PDN's interpretation will be what ever is the opposite of what I stated, no matter what it was I stated.

    The point was that this is how Jews interpret this story (and have interpreted the story for a long time).

    In fact that wasn't even the point, the original point was that Jews do not believe Jesus is the son of God for a number of reasons one of which is that the Old Testament says that God is formless and will not appear to humans as anything, not a thing or a person, and because of this Jews should be wary of anyone claiming God himself has appeared as a physical thing or person. Thus they are wary of Jesus, or more accurately, claims that Jesus was a physical manifestation of God.


  • #1525
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    If you think it is nonsense I would wonder why you're attempting to argue about it.

    I'm just saying that PDN's view on the matter has been expressed by Christians throughout history. As for Jews rejecting Jesus, that's an entirely different argument and it would require looking at Messianic prophesy a little more closely.


  • #1526
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    If you think it is nonsense I would wonder why you're attempting to argue about it.

    Because PDN was rude and insulting and claimed I was making the whole thing up.

    You would be surprised how that riles the blood when a moderator of a forum does this, particularly when he seems to have no issue using these apparent falsehoods on my part to bad mouth me to other posters.
    philologos wrote: »
    I'm just saying that PDN's view on the matter has been expressed by Christians throughout history.

    Which is irrelevant to the original point, why Jews do not accept Jesus. Obviously, by definition, Christians have already accepted Jesus.
    philologos wrote: »
    As for Jews rejecting Jesus, that's an entirely different argument and it would require looking at Messianic prophesy a little more closely.

    No it is the argument. It was a discussion between me an another poster that PDN interrupted to inform me that I was talking nonsense and making stuff up.
    PDN wrote: »
    Actually it isn't. The warning, as anyone who bothers to read it can clearly see, is against creating an idol, or image, in the form of a man:

    But, when you're desperate, I guess you can try to twist it to try to apply it to someone born as a man rather than an idol or an image.

    Still, as far as atheist arguments against the existence of God go, this one (that the Jews are right and the Christians are wrong) probably takes the biscuit. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel now. :)

    As to why he did that, you will have to take it up with him. I didn't ask PDN what his interpretation of that passage was, and while I've no issue with another poster putting forward their interpretation or view point most posters manage to do so in a far less snide and insulting fashion. But then PDN seems to waging a personal war of insults against the non-Christians on this forum.


  • #1527
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zombrex wrote: »

    As I said to you that last time I know what theophany is.



    Yes but as you are no doubt well aware the angels that appear are messengers for God, not a physical manifestation of God himself. Angel itself means messenger, the angel of the Lord is the messenger of the Lord.

    OK, if that's what you insist a theophany is then there's little point in continuing discussing it.


  • #1528
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: Leaving your views about PDN aside.

    If you want to find out what objections Jews have to belief in Christ, you should ask them surely? I find it quite interesting to look at what responses Jewish Christians provide to these questions however.


  • #1529
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: Leaving your views about PDN aside.

    If you want to find out what objections Jews have to belief in Christ, you should ask them surely?

    I did. That is why I commented on the thread in the first place. Despite what some people like to claim I don't generally just talk out my ass about something.
    philologos wrote: »
    I find it quite interesting to look at what responses Jewish Christians provide to these questions however.

    While I think Jews for Jesus are interesting, they are also regarded as a Christian missionary group, so probably not the best place to go to find out what Jews believe, any more than the Mormons will tell you what true Christian values are :).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_for_Jesus#cite_note-4


  • #1530
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    The views of Jewish Christians aren't welcome on the subject? Their mission is to tell fellow Jews about Jesus, their Messiah, their website engages with many Jewish arguments against the Christian conception of Jesus as a result.

    If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away. If you aren't going to actually present arguments against Christianity but rather employ the arguments of other religions you should know what they are first.

    If you want to engage the Christian position without arguments-by-proxy I'm quite happy to give it a go. Otherwise I don't know how productive a use of anyone's time it is.


  • Advertisement
  • #1531
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    philologos wrote: »

    If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away. If you aren't going to actually present arguments against Christianity but rather employ the arguments of other religions you should know what they are first

    Too true.

    Using a Jewish arguement against the Messiah, but an atheist viewpoint that God commands rape seems a little all over the place to be honest Zombrex, but with one target in mind. It's not exactly news that some Jews and indeed Muslims or Atheists etc. don't believe that Christ was the Messiah.....:confused: .....but it shouldn't be news that Christians do! :)

    So, I really don't know what your plan or point is pages and pages later...


  • #1532
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Did you actually read the post? I did not call anyone a paedophile, nor did I compare anyone to a paedophile. In fact I stated than anyone who did such a thing would be banned for a long time. :confused:

    I used an extreme example to demonstrate the vacuous logic that makes an assertion where a perfectly plausible innocent alternative exists.

    I could have made it about murder, rather than paedophilia, or used anyone's name. In fact I wish I had done so as then no-one would have an excuse to feign outrage or hysteria and thereby evade the logic of my post.

    Careful now PDN! When I do things like that people ban me :)
    Ill have to lie down now Im having a serious bout of Deja Vu.

    Happy Christmas and New year by the way.


  • #1533
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er, when did I dodge your question PDN?

    The way these discussions typically work is we discuss something for while, normally with you constantly making snide comments about how I don't understand things as well as you, you eventually get sick of not being able to actually demonstrate I'm wrong,

    1. He doesn't have top prove you are wrong or any other negative. If you conme here and assert something is true you have to support it!

    2. If you say "well it is just my opinion but all you have is your opinion" that isnt good enough either.
    you go away for a while and then resurface stating that based on the last discussion you had with me I was completely bested by superior Christian argument and by repeating the same flawed argument that you destroyed the last time I'm in fact trolling and just being a nausense.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66734730&postcount=53
    My guess is this paradoxical contradiction of a statement "I can't know anything for certain" and assumption that the statement is true needs to be thought out a bit more.

    Try thinking it out again. Can you demonstrate any of your assertions are correct ? especially when you don't believe any theory is ever 100% correct? As to what then "less than 100%" is a percent of the mind boggles.


  • #1534
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    The views of Jewish Christians aren't welcome on the subject?

    Welcome in what way?

    The subject is why do Jews not recognize Jesus as the messiah. What is the Jesus for Jews answer to that?
    philologos wrote: »
    Their mission is to tell fellow Jews about Jesus, their Messiah, their website engages with many Jewish arguments against the Christian conception of Jesus as a result.

    Great, what does that have to do with anything we are discussing?
    philologos wrote: »
    If you want to find out about Jewish arguments against the Messiah, they are a google away.

    They aren't putting forward arguments why Jesus wasn't the Messiah, they are putting forward arguments why he is. Hence the Jews for Jesus. A large proportion of the Jewish community seem to say that they do not represent the Jewish position, they represent the Christian position. Hence why would I go to them for the Jewish position?

    Should I go to Mormons to find out the arguments for why Christians don't accept Mormonism? Do you think Mormons accurately represent Christian objections to Mormonism? Wouldn't it be better to simply ask a Christian?

    Perhaps we should ask atheists what are the reason Christians believe in all this stuff :)


  • #1535
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Too true.

    Using a Jewish arguement against the Messiah, but an atheist viewpoint that God commands rape seems a little all over the place to be honest Zombrex, but with one target in mind. It's not exactly news that some Jews and indeed Muslims or Atheists etc. don't believe that Christ was the Messiah.....:confused: .....but it shouldn't be news that Christians do! :)

    So, I really don't know what your plan or point is pages and pages later...

    Well my plan is to take over the world and corrupt all your youth Imaopml, its just a pity I'm clearly so transparent about it. ;)




    Before ISAW has an aneurysm trying to get the words "I KNEW IT" out, I'm joking.


  • #1536
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well my plan is to take over the world and corrupt all your youth Imaopml, its just a pity I'm clearly so transparent about it. ;)




    Before ISAW has an aneurysm trying to get the words "I KNEW IT" out, I'm joking.

    I knew it! I knew you would not state what your plan or point was.


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Perhaps we should ask atheists what are the reason Christians believe in all this stuff
    Not a bad question, why do xians believe in God according to atheists.
    And why don't atheists believe in god according to xians.
    My guess is because some people are predisposed to believe and some are not, a psychological thing not a predestination thing. I think our culture allows the unbeliever to hold and articulate their views in a way that was not acceptable before and still isn't in many places.


  • #1538
    beerbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And ... get to the Christianity is rational and logical bit.

    Cause you have just described pretty much every religion or cult from Heavens Gate to Jonestown.

    and in athiesm you have every thing from Scientology to Buddism so your point is ?


  • #1539
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    PDN wrote: »
    Why on earth would you presume that her new husband had killed her family? :confused:

    Moving on from that, there is no mention of rape. The woman was to mourn her family, and after that could be married to her captor. If she didn't marry him she would remain as a slave/domestic servant.

    If she did marry him, and then did not please her husband, then he did not have the right to divorce her, with her reverting to the status of a servant. If he divorced her then she had to be released as a free woman.

    The issue of her consent or otherwise is not mentioned. The passage appears to make equal sense linguistically and contextually with either a consensual or a non-consensual interpretation.

    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    The reason I assumed her parents were killed by the husband is because I assumed they were killed in the war responsible for her captivity.


  • #1540
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them.

    Excluded middle!
    Or "keep them for yourselves" mean as indentured servants? Not marriage and not rape.
    As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Actually medical and philosophical thought would not be about delight by satisfaction. The power in sex is about desire and not necessarily about the satisfaction if it.


  • #1541
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    beerbuddy wrote: »
    and in athiesm you have every thing from Scientology to Buddism so your point is ?

    My point was when is he going to get to the rational bit. Because believing something because others believe it isn't particularly rational, so I'm assuming that wasn't the rational bit.


  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Who said anything about happily ever after? I would have thought that the primary goal of marriage back in those times was security. At root it's probably no different today. Indeed, it's exactly what I would expect from an evolutionary perspective. Less fairytale wedding and more practical domestic contract.

    I wonder if the passage was in any way referring to polygamous relationships?
    Morbert wrote: »
    The reason I assumed her parents were killed by the husband is because I assumed they were killed in the war responsible for her captivity.

    It doesn't actually mention anything about the husband killing the parents though.


  • #1543
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Zombrex: If you want to know why Jews don't believe in Jesus it's a google away. I don't know why you expect Christians to argue for the rejection of Christ on boards.ie.

    The more appropriate question is why are we even discussing that here.


  • #1544
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Why all this twisting and turning like a worm on a hook ?

    A case could be made for all of the above scenarios . In fact it is possible that all of them happened.

    Some of the marriages may have been welcomed on their own terms.
    Some may have been accepted as the lesser of evils.
    Some may have been resisted and were thus forced .
    Some may have choosen ISAW's indentured servant route
    Some may have had their family killed , some may not .


    That brings us to the question of applying modern standards to ancient times ( notwithstanding the Chechen documentaries).

    By modern standards some of those marriages would be regarded as rape.

    Which brings up the question is biblical morality mutable, which opens the door to homosexuality .


  • #1545
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    My point was when is he going to get to the rational bit. Because believing something because others believe it isn't particularly rational, so I'm assuming that wasn't the rational bit.

    How about "believing in something in spite of what others believe"? Is that more rational?
    I suppose you are assuming religion is like "believing something because others believe it" and think "scientists believe in something not because of others believe it but because it is rational for them to believe in it "?
    I would thin some scientists believe things because others influenced them? I would think some believe in things in spite of all the other scientists saying they are silly to believe such things.

    So tell us... what yardstick of rationality explains belief? What makes a set of beliefs "rational" and another set "irrational"? And can science not progress based on irrational beliefs or based on just accepting what others believe?


  • #1546
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Why all this twisting and turning like a worm on a hook ?

    A case could be made for all of the above scenarios . In fact it is possible that all of them happened.

    Some of the marriages may have been welcomed on their own terms.
    Some may have been accepted as the lesser of evils.
    Some may have been resisted and were thus forced .
    Some may have choosen ISAW's indentured servant route
    Some may have had their family killed , some may not .

    I agree with you. so the suggstionj the passage is "God ordered people to rape" is not proven?
    That brings us to the question of applying modern standards to ancient times ( notwithstanding the Chechen documentaries).

    I agree with you here too. I think you are referring to a philosophical prochronism.
    By modern standards some of those marriages would be regarded as rape.

    Ah. Presentism. I agree.
    Which brings up the question is biblical morality mutable, which opens the door to homosexuality .

    Very good point. I accept concepts are understood in a cultural context but what "morality" is presentism projecting? If it isn't absolute then the relativists who raised the point that "God ordered rape" have a self defeating argument. this point was already made by someone else.


  • #1547
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Morbert wrote: »
    I see the consensual interpretation as much more contrived though. I don't believe the husband would physically pin her down and rape her (or if he did, I don't believe God would approve). But I equally don't see how an army could invade a group of people, and have their captives happily marry them. As well as this, the contingencies mentioned are the desire the man has for the woman, and the delight he has afterwards. The woman's will is only mentioned if the man has no delight.

    Those were the days, my friend.

    It is doubtful if many marriages were fully consensual (in the full modern sense of the term as we understand it in the 21st Century) at that time in history. At most times in history, many marriages were arranged while the spouses were still children. They didn't choose their marriage partners freely from every possible person of the opposite sex. Their decisions were often determined by their parents, and marriage was unthinkable across national, caste, religious or class lines. Marriages sealed political alliances, guaranteed inheritances etc. Marrying for romantic love has probably been the exception, rather than the norm, for most of human history.

    I've spoken at length about this with some Indian friends who live, apparently very happily, in an arranged marriage. I asked them, "But if you found the other person absolutely repulsive, would you be forced to marry them?" They laughed at me, and explained that of course they would not have been physically dragged to the altar - but they weighed up the consequences of refusal with the consequences of acquiesing in their parents' choice. In the end, even though neither might have chosen each other, given a totally free choice, they decided that it was easier and better to go along with their parents' plans. And, I must say, they seem much happier than most Irish married couples!

    So, coming back to Deuteronomy, I can easily see a situation where captive women weighed up their options, and asked themselves, "Is this guy utterly unbearable? Or would I be better off living as his wife rather than as a domestic servant/slave working on someone's farm?" It might have been with a resigned shrug, but it hardly constituted rape.

    Now, comparing Deuteronomy with what has happened in war for most of human history, I don't think such a scenario is ridiculous or contrived at all.

    These women knew that if any other army had captured their city then gang rapes followed by servitude (if they were lucky and were not killed) would be the order of the day. Instead they encounter an army that is forbidden to behave in such a way. They face up to the fact that they will be taken as captives to Israel. Then they find that an Israelite man wants to take them as his wife. However, that carries certain safeguards:
    a) The marriage cannot take place immediately. They have to be given time to mourn, creating a space for reflection. So it's not a case of a randy soldier quickly marrying a captive woman in order to shag her, then getting home, thinking twice about it, and cancelling the arrangement.
    b) If the guy did change his mind, then the woman could be divorced by the man. But she would not return to servitude, but would be released as a free woman to live wherever she wanted, in Israel or overseas.

    Now, if she absolutely dug her heels in, and screamed that there was no way she would marry this guy, then would she be dragged screaming off anyway? I see no hint in the text that would be the case. If it did, then that would certainly be rape. But it could easily be the case that she would be set to work as a slave/domestic servant on a farm or homestead somewhere. How many husbands would really want a wife under those circumstances anyway? That's sounds like a good way for a man to get his throat cut while he's sleeping and his wife is chopping the vegetables!

    But, given the limited choices and expectations most women had for most of history, it is entirely plausible that most of them would have mourned for their families, and then married one of the captors, making the best of a bad situation, and thinking that at least they were better off than the ugly women who had no choice except servitude.

    So it plausible that consent is not mentioned, because it really didn't occur to anyone that a woman would choose servitude rather than marriage.
    That, IMHO, is not implausible or contrived at all. In fact it fits with much of what we know about social structures and warfare in history.

    Is it what I would choose to happen to my daughter in 2012? No, of course not.

    But is it rape? I don't think so.


  • #1548
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    But is it rape? I don't think so.
    So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
    I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?


  • #1549
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    So 'rape' is what that society calls rape?
    I recall a sifi story where sex was as common as a handshake and no concept of rape existed. Are we getting back to whats wrong is what God says is wrong?

    No, we aren't. I don't think the scenario I described is rape by any normal use of language.


  • #1550
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Zombrex: If you want to know why Jews don't believe in Jesus it's a google away. I don't know why you expect Christians to argue for the rejection of Christ on boards.ie.

    I don't, my comment was originally to a non-Christian.

    But for some reason Christians started arguing I was wrong anyway :rolleyes:


  • #1551
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    How about "believing in something in spite of what others believe"? Is that more rational?

    It depends on the reason, hence the term "rational"


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement