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)

13132343637196

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex, have you missed post 1632 ?


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What are you talking about?
    Whatyou stated to TQE.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76208313&postcount=1629
    But you present logic that could be applied to any religion. When you are pressed on this the response is that the Gospels make sense to you from a moral point of view
    If the justification for belief in Christianity when applied to any other religion requires you believe that religion too, then clearly this is not the reason one picks Christianity.

    But he isn't applying it to any religion. you are! so off you go and show how it applies to all religions if you want. It is a claim he didn't make.


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


    Zombrex, have you missed post 1632 ?

    No. Was there something particular you wanted a reply for. You seem to be saying you have your reasons but you don't want to explain them. Not much to discuss.


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    But he isn't applying it to any religion.

    Yes, that is the point. :rolleyes:


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes, that is the point. :rolleyes:

    WhatI mean is he isnt applying it to all religions. He is only apply ing it to christianity. He isnt claim it true in general for all religions. If you think it is then go and waster you time trying to prove it.


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Groan.:rolleyes:

    The 400 virgins did not come from Shiloh, they came from Jabesh Gilead

    Er, you did cite a Chapter that referred to both Jabesh Gilead and Shgiloh. So you can hardly blame me for referring to the second group rather than the first.

    But the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were Israelites too (Judges 21:8), so this is a totally different kettle of fish to Deut 21 or Numbers 31.
    So what did they do, they killed the men and every woman not a virgin, and then they took the virgins back and gave them as wives.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, it sounds like a very distorted compilation of Deut 21 and Numbers 31 by someone trying to shoehorn a horrible example of human sinfulness into their atheistic agenda.
    I don't care if God did or didn't order this particular act of rape and pillage. The point is that this was business as usual for the Israelites, whether it was under their own command or under God's.

    You're right. You don't care. You start a discussion by alleging that God commanded rape, and then you don't care whether Judges 21 is actually relevant to God commanding anything or not. That pretty well sums it up.
    The idea that if God had commanded it the women would have been treated differently is utterly ridiculous.
    Right, then please don't keep pretending that any of this is relevant to what God commanded.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No. Was there something particular you wanted a reply for. You seem to be saying you have your reasons but you don't want to explain them. Not much to discuss.

    No I'm saying unless you have genuine questions you genuinely want clarified about what I believe and why, (rather than pretending what I have said and then trying to dismiss it), I'm not interested in spending time writing long answers.


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


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm hardly ducking and diving. I'm using clear-headed logic.

    Many people get married for less than perfect reasons. That does not equate to rape.


    They have the choice to walk away from the marriage. That is the choice that matters.


    So did she have a choice to simply be a captive and not marry anyone else?

    Was she given time to mourn for her parents before making that choice?

    We both know she didn't. So it is sloppy logic to pretend that is an apt comparison.


    If you present poor logic then expect it to be skewered.

    Ok , lets continue with the poor logic then -

    You are equating a choice of either marriage or servitude with a free choice ?

    You are saying that as Andromache was not given time to mourn her parents that makes a big difference ?

    By the way , correct me if I am wrong , but did you not pull Zombrex up earlier for saying these womens families were killed ?


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    How so?

    so what?


    Yes a reasonable valid and reliable one.


    1. Im not! i have already shown you thatmy argument isnt bnased on "caould shoullda woulda..." pure conjecture or on "make up your own morals yourself" but on textual interdependence and consistency

    2. Even if I was just expressing an opinion it isnt a question of balance!
    It is for those saying "the Bible shows God ordered rape" to support their claims!


    I was referring to Wicknight and his "God commanded rape" claims.

    I was also referring to Wicknight on the murder issue- but no matter.

    It is not up to anyone to prove anything surely. I am correct in saying that for a lot of Christians the bible in the beginning and end of it - is that not so ?

    Do we need special guidance before we can interpret it, ? that was certainly the position of the Catholic Church when I was growing up .


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


    OK at last people are starting to get it.
    PDN, I'm sorry if you took it I was refering to Christians alone with my last post.
    Deut. is putting down rules for things that were happening. Rape is what was happening.
    God dosn't come into it. The fact that the passage makes reference to having 'defiled her' admits rape.
    The point is that people do bad things, God dosn't awalys do anything about that, some would say never but I'll count someone speaking against it as a posible intervention for the sake of argurement.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    It is not up to anyone to prove anything surely. I am correct in saying that for a lot of Christians the bible in the beginning and end of it - is that not so ?

    Do we need special guidance before we can interpret it, ? that was certainly the position of the Catholic Church when I was growing up .

    Last point, yes some reading of the history and context helps. Do we need spin doctors to tell us how to apply it to our lives. No.
    Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions.
    As true today as when it was written :eek:


    BTW I found this Jewish opinion of the passage in Deuteronomy, might be of interest to some of ye.
    http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    Ok , lets continue with the poor logic then -

    You are equating a choice of either marriage or servitude with a free choice ?

    That all depends.

    If you kidnap a woman who would otherwise be free and say, "Marry me or else I'll make you a slave!" then that is a different thing from approaching a woman who is already part of a group of captives and asking, "Will you marry me?"

    One is blackmail. The other is a choice. It might not be a great choice, as choices in real life are often limited, but it is a free choice.
    You are saying that as Andromache was not given time to mourn her parents that makes a big difference ?
    That and the fact that she had no choice whatsoever, and was kept as a concubine rather than as a wife. Put all that together and you have a huge difference.
    By the way , correct me if I am wrong , but did you not pull Zombrex up earlier for saying these womens families were killed ?
    Yes, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    OK at last people are starting to get it.
    PDN, I'm sorry if you took it I was refering to Christians alone with my last post.
    Deut. is putting down rules for things that were happening. Rape is what was happening.

    No, that is incorrect. Deuteronomy was laying down rules for what would happen in the future. The rules in Deuteronomy were laid down in the wilderness before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, and gave them instructions for how they should behave once they possessed the land and fought wars as a nation.

    What would happen was wars - rape doesn't come into it (except in the minds of certain posters).
    God dosn't come into it. The fact that the passage makes reference to having 'defiled her' admits rape.
    No it doesn't. If a man married a woman and then divorced her, she would find it almost impossible to find another husband. Therefore some sort of compensation would be due.


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


    PDN wrote: »
    That all depends.

    If you kidnap a woman who would otherwise be free and say, "Marry me or else I'll make you a slave!" then that is a different thing from approaching a woman who is already part of a group of captives and asking, "Will you marry me?"

    One is blackmail. The other is a choice. It might not be a great choice, as choices in real life are often limited, but it is a free choice.


    That and the fact that she had no choice whatsoever, and was kept as a concubine rather than as a wife. Put all that together and you have a huge difference.

    Yes, I'm pretty sure you're wrong.




    How can a choice than is either/or be free , would it be regarded as free today for example ?

    And lets be brutal about it - the options are- satisfy this man sexually or go work the fields or skin hides or whatever they did in those days.

    You see a difference approaching a group that were already captive ?

    How so, the guy walks up to the prettiest girl he sees of the kidnapped/captives ( terms are interchangeable) girls and says marry me or work the fields . You see no coercion in this ?

    how is that not ( to quote your own post ) marry me or I will make you a slave ?


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


    PDN wrote: »
    No, that is incorrect. Deuteronomy was laying down rules for what would happen in the future. The rules in Deuteronomy were laid down in the wilderness before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, and gave them instructions for how they should behave once they possessed the land and fought wars as a nation.
    So much here to pull you up on but it too late to be even posting
    What would happen was wars - rape doesn't come into it (except in the minds of certain posters).


    No it doesn't. If a man married a woman and then divorced her, she would find it almost impossible to find another husband. Therefore some sort of compensation would be due.

    Spin doctoring again. Context and time PDN. Deut. had to be written after Mosses cos he dies in it. Anyway its not like that was the only war was ever fought. As to laying down laws for the future! Eh! what use are laws for the past? cant apply law retrospectively.
    Night ppl, thanks for the fish :D


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Last point, yes some reading of the history and context helps. Do we need spin doctors to tell us how to apply it to our lives. No.

    As true today as when it was written :eek:


    BTW I found this Jewish opinion of the passage in Deuteronomy, might be of interest to some of ye.
    http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm

    That Jewish opinion would seem to bear out what I and others have being saying, would it not ? That rape and other sexual violence did occur ?


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Not at all, quite the opposite in fact. I recognize I do it, which is why I don't pretend that the moral systems I pick are some how objectively true.

    I did not pretend that the moral system I picked is objectively true. Please show me at what point I said such a thing. Go on, I dare you.

    What I actually said was that both objective morality exists along with subjective morality. And I attempted to use objective truth as a direct analogy. I never claimed that I had a monopoly on objective morality, just like I have never claimed to have an inside line to objective truth. What I have said is that objective morality and objective truth exist whether or not we acknowledge it. Even at the level of thought experiment this, I believe, is sound logic. Now if you have a problem with that then argue against what I am saying, not what you imagine or wish me to say.

    Stating I have said anything more than this - which is exactly what you have done - means that you have misrepresented me.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Yes this seems to be the standard excuse when such an idea is put forward. I want to be having sex with lots and lots of different women every night, but I don't because Christianity tells me it is wrong. ;)

    It's not an excuse. It a direct rebuttal to your claim that people adopt a moral system because it suits them. One reason they might adopt a particular moral system is because *Shock! Horror!* they happen to think it is true.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    There is a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral.

    Why do you insist of inventing arguments of your own making? It like playing chess against yourself and attributing your crappy moves to somebody else.

    I never stated there wasn't "a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral". What I actually said was that the two can clash. I'll add to that and say that desire can control reason. What you hold to be moral may change depending on the pull of your desires. The opposite is true as well.
    In fact part of the appeal of religions is that they give justification to the notion that giving into desire is inherently bad, a concept found almost universally through human culture.

    That's rubbish. Firstly not all desires are bad and no one here has claimed otherwise. Secondly, the concept of self-denial is as much a part of certain philosophies as it is a part of certain religions.

    Incidentally, not all religions are one and the same, just as not all philosophies are the same. That is why, for example, hedonism is not the same as Stoicism, and Christianity is not the same as the worship of Dionysus.
    The existence of objective morality is largely irrelevant...

    I don't agree. Stale mate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    marienbad wrote: »
    That Jewish opinion would seem to bear out what I and others have being saying, would it not ? That rape and other sexual violence did occur ?

    Nobody said it didn't! It happens today too..which is a greater cause of concern surely?

    What the thread is about is whether God ordered it to be so, or that the gripe is that he allowed it to be so and why?....Christians acknowledge that he knows all things, but allows freedom...this is instantaneous for the one who willed the pale blue dot with all it's eery uniqueness, outside of time, outside of place.

    Some see only a dot, and equate their value to the dot, others see beauty in the pale blue dot that observes the universe in it's magnificence...and feel honoured, and thank God for the beauty of the pale blue dot, and how incredibly unique we are to observe beauty...we're spookily alone.


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


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Nobody said it didn't! It happens today too..which is a greater cause of concern surely?

    What the thread is about is whether God ordered it to be so, or that the gripe is that he allowed it to be so and why?....Christians acknowledge that he knows all things, but allows freedom...this is instantaneous for the one who willed the pale blue dot with all it's eery uniqueness, outside of time, outside of place.

    Some see only a dot, and equate their value to the dot, others see beauty in the pale blue dot that observes the universe in it's magnificence...and feel honoured, and thank God for the beauty of the pale blue dot, and how incredibly unique we are to observe beauty...we're spookily alone.

    So get off the fence then , did he or did'nt he ? and we will join up the dots later.


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


    PDN wrote: »
    Er, you did cite a Chapter that referred to both Jabesh Gilead and Shgiloh. So you can hardly blame me for referring to the second group rather than the first.

    Well I would have expected you to actually read it before you commented.
    PDN wrote: »
    But the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were Israelites too (Judges 21:8), so this is a totally different kettle of fish to Deut 21 or Numbers 31.

    Siege a city, kill the men and women, take the virgins. Seems pretty similar PDN.
    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, it sounds like a very distorted compilation of Deut 21 and Numbers 31 by someone trying to shoehorn a horrible example of human sinfulness into their atheistic agenda.

    So you have run out of counter-arguments and you are just going to fall back on the old "atheist agenda" nonsense. Good stuff. And on the atheism debate thread as all, the shame of me ;)
    PDN wrote: »
    You're right. You don't care. You start a discussion by alleging that God commanded rape, and then you don't care whether Judges 21 is actually relevant to God commanding anything or not. That pretty well sums it up.

    Lol, oh dear you really will argue the sky is black won't you.

    As I have stated many times at this point that God commanded force marriage and rape in Deuteronomy.

    Judges 21 does not add support to what God commanded. God doesn't seem to be commanding anything in Judge 21.

    But then that isn't why it was brought up. It was brought up to demonstrate the silliness of the assumption that in Deuteronomy what is being described is consensual marriage.

    The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.

    Remember your argument (which you have stated you aren't prepared to defend) is that the Israelites wouldn't do this, not that God wouldn't command it.
    PDN wrote:
    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!

    Whether the Israelites were actually acting under God's orders or not, they were carrying out war as they understood it. How would they understand that consent was irrelevant if that was not how they had carried out all their "just" wars previously. You seriously think that it is plausible that when they were carrying out sieges and slavery under the commandment of God they considered the wishes of the women they captured, but when they just thought they were they didn't?

    You bring a new meaning to the term "plausible interpretation"
    PDN wrote: »
    Right, then please don't keep pretending that any of this is relevant to what God commanded.

    It is relevant to the possible interpretations of take women and marry them as described in Deut.

    Your flimsy argument that consensual marriage was a plausible interpretation is now even more flimsy given how we see the Israelites behaved in Judges.

    Tell us again how the sky is black PDN :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    I did not pretend that the moral system I picked is objectively true. Please show me at what point I said such a thing. Go on, I dare you.

    Ok, you seem to not get what pretend means, but you believe God's morals are objectively true correct?
    What I actually said was that both objective morality exists along with subjective morality. And I attempted to use objective truth as a direct analogy. I never claimed that I had a monopoly on objective morality, just like I have never claimed to have an inside line to objective truth. What I have said is that objective morality and objective truth exist whether or not we acknowledge it. Even at the level of thought experiment this, I believe, is sound logic.

    Er, no. Objective truth is not the same thing as objective morality. Objective morality is a thing (if it exists), where is truth is just a comment on a statement about reality.

    Objective morality could just as easily not exist at all.
    It's not an excuse. It a direct rebuttal to your claim that people adopt a moral system because it suits them.

    I didn't claim people adopt moral systems because it suits them.

    I claimed people adopt moral systems that match their own notions of morality, notions they had before they started to evaluate the religion in a serious fashion. These pre-conceive moral notions become imprinted on the subsequent interpretations of the religion.
    One reason they might adopt a particular moral system is because *Shock! Horror!* they happen to think it is true.

    I've no doubt you think it is true.
    I never stated there wasn't "a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral".

    No you didn't. What you did was bring up desire when I was discussing morality. Either this was a deliberate act of misdirection and straw manning, or you didn't understand the difference between desire (what we want) and morality (what we believe to be correct behaviour).
    I don't agree. Stale mate.

    Of course you don't agree. The issue is that you are fast running out of arguments for why you don't agree (which could explain why you are trying to distort what I'm saying by shifting the focus from morality to desire)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Objective morality could just as easily not exist at all.

    "The ecstasy of thought is dangerous in a nation--Where the individuals observe no rule--Though God‐gifted intellect is the lamp of an age---The freedom of thought is a Satanic concept"


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    How can a choice than is either/or be free , would it be regarded as free today for example ?

    And lets be brutal about it - the options are- satisfy this man sexually or go work the fields or skin hides or whatever they did in those days.

    No, you are presenting this in a very dishonest way. The option is not 'satisfy a man sexually or ...'. If a man merely wants to be satisfied sexually then there are easier ways of going about that than bringing a woman into your house, listen to her noisily mourning her parents for a full month, then going through all the rigmarole of marrying her.

    Really, marien, you make comments about how no-one should make smart-alec asides etc, but do you not see how this totally dishonest misrepresentation of others' position is a bit trollish and invites mockery?

    Btw, we don't think that slavery in Ancient Israel was anything like the industrial type slavery as practiced in 18th Century Caribbean sugar plantations or in modern Communist States. Being a slave would be more like living with a family, helping herd the animals, helping prepare the food etc. The Israelites didn't have salt mines or sugar plantations. It was still degrading and was still servitude - but references to 'skinning hides' etc really distort any reasonable discussion by making it sound like we're talking about Belsen or something.

    But certainly either/or is a free choice. As I said before, that's what choice means - you choose one thing or another.

    You see a difference approaching a group that were already captive ?

    How so, the guy walks up to the prettiest girl he sees of the kidnapped/captives ( terms are interchangeable) girls and says marry me or work the fields . You see no coercion in this ?

    how is that not ( to quote your own post ) marry me or I will make you a slave ?

    It's totally different, and I'm amazed that you can't see it without me spelling it out to you.

    There is a world of a difference between:
    a) Approachiong someone already in bad circumstances, and offering a proposition.
    b) Threatening somebody who is not in bad circumstances, that if they don't comply with your proposition then they will end up in those bad circumstances.

    For example:
    a) An American GI approaches a German girl who is living in poverty in the wreckage of 1945 Berlin and asks her to marry him. "Let me take you away from all this, sweetheart."
    b) The American GI approaches an affluent German girl and says, "Marry me, or else I'll have you stripped of your assets and forced into poverty."

    or

    a) A guy in the Southern US in the 1700s falls in love with a negro slave, and offers to marry her and move with her to the North where she will no longer be a slave.
    b) The guy goes up to a black woman who is already free and says, "Marry me, or else I'll put you into slavery."

    Now, if you genuinely claim that there is no difference in each case between (a) and (b) then we have some real problems and should probably give up trying to discuss anything in a logical way.

    Ethically, there is a huge difference between:
    a) Offering a proposal of marriage which will mean the woman getting out of a hard situation that she is already in.
    b) Offering a proposal of marriage with the threat that a refusal will mean the imposition of a hard situation where, if the proposal had not been made, the woman would not have ended up in the hard situation.

    Option (b) in each case is blackmail and coercion. It is "Do what I want or I will make something bad happen to you that otherwise would not have happened."

    But option (a) is a proposal that says, "Do what I want, and it will get you out of the bad thing that has already happened to you."

    It is a free choice. It might not be a romantic choice, but as I've already said earlier, most marriages in human history have, particularly for women, been more about pragmatic choices rather than about romance.


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Well I would have expected you to actually read it before you commented.
    And I did. It refers to two distinct incidents in very different circumstances. If you didn't want us to talk about what happened at Shiloh then you shouldn't have quoted the whole passage.

    It was a simple misunderstanding - no need to be snarky about that when there's plenty of substantive things that we disagree on.
    Siege a city, kill the men and women, take the virgins. Seems pretty similar PDN.
    No, it isn't, Virgins aren't mentioned in Deuteronomy 21. And nothing about taking wives is mentioned in Numbers 21.

    It sounds like you're shoehorning again.
    So you have run out of counter-arguments and you are just going to fall back on the old "atheist agenda" nonsense. Good stuff. And on the atheism debate thread as all, the shame of me
    And you've never made a comment about Christians or 'you guys' (as you like to put it) being biased, have you? :rolleyes:

    Pot. Kettle, Black
    Lol, oh dear you really will argue the sky is black won't you.
    So, just to clarify, you're posting at 3.30am and making sarcastic comments about the sky being black? :pac:
    As I have stated many times at this point that God commanded force marriage and rape in Deuteronomy.
    Stated, and failed to support it with any evidence. There is no reference to rape in Deuteronomy 21. If there were you would have pointed to it by now instead of dancing around every time we ask you to point to it.
    Judges 21 does not add support to what God commanded. God doesn't seem to be commanding anything in Judge 21.

    But then that isn't why it was brought up. It was brought up to demonstrate the silliness of the assumption that in Deuteronomy what is being described is consensual marriage.

    The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.

    So you make an assertion that God commanded rape.

    Then, when challenged to point to anywhere in the Bible where God commanded rape, you point to a passage where you admit yourself that God didn't command rape. In fact, you ppoint to a passage which, like most of Judges, described what happened when people just did what was right in their own eyes.

    Can we use this same line of logic in other historical arenas?

    Can we claim that Barack Obama ordered American soldiers to shoot children in Afghanistan?

    After all, I can present evidence of where American soldiers shot children in a different war while not obeying any orders. So, in the world of Wicknightian logic and Humpty Dumpty language, that proves the silliness of any claim that Barack Obama did not indeed order them to shoot children.

    Keep this up and repeat it enough times, and maybe someone will end up believing that the sky is black at 3.30am. ;)
    The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.

    Remember your argument (which you have stated you aren't prepared to defend) is that the Israelites wouldn't do this, not that God wouldn't command it.
    Wow! Where did the goal posts just go? :eek:

    Can you please link to where I made that argument?

    My argument all along has been that there is no record in the Bible of God commanding the Israelites to rape anyone, and that therefore your assertion is flat out wrong.

    Why on earth would I argue that the Israelites (being sinful human beings) would never do anything nasty?

    So please either link to where I made such an argument or withdraw that claim as untrue.
    Your flimsy argument that consensual marriage was a plausible interpretation is now even more flimsy given how we see the Israelites behaved in Judges.
    Yes, because how soldiers behave when they are expressly disobeying orders makes it a flimsy argument that they might have behaved differently when they were obeying orders. :rolleyes:


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Spin doctoring again. Context and time PDN. Deut. had to be written after Mosses cos he dies in it. Anyway its not like that was the only war was ever fought. As to laying down laws for the future! Eh! what use are laws for the past? cant apply law retrospectively.
    Night ppl, thanks for the fish :D

    Deuteronomy's final edit was certainly after Moses' death, but the events it is describing (including the deutero-nomos - literally second giving of the law) occurred during Moses' lifetime.

    Now, if you want to argue that Deuteronomy was re-edited etc. to fit with later events then that is going to create a wonderful piece of circular logic. We are going to ask the Christians in this forum to reject the Bible as immoral, on the basis that, if you already accept the atheist rejection of the Bible as an accurate record, it might refer to rape if you read between the lines enough.

    Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding



    PDN wrote: »
    I'm hardly ducking and diving. I'm using clear-headed logic.

    Many people get married for less than perfect reasons. That does not equate to rape.
    Getting married for less than perfect reasons is one thing, getting married when you are effectively under duress is quite another.


    PDN wrote: »

    Ethically, there is a huge difference between:
    a) Offering a proposal of marriage which will mean the woman getting out of a hard situation that she is already in.
    b) Offering a proposal of marriage with the threat that a refusal will mean the imposition of a hard situation where, if the proposal had not been made, the woman would not have ended up in the hard situation.

    Option (b) in each case is blackmail and coercion. It is "Do what I want or I will make something bad happen to you that otherwise would not have happened."

    But option (a) is a proposal that says, "Do what I want, and it will get you out of the bad thing that has already happened to you."

    It is a free choice. It might not be a romantic choice, but as I've already said earlier, most marriages in human history have, particularly for women, been more about pragmatic choices rather than about romance.


    But the reason the woman is in the position she find herself in, having to make this choice, is due to the actions of the man, or his people. For a modern perspective here is the current UK legislation.
    First, the legal definition of rape:
    1 RapeE+W
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
    (2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
    (3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.
    (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

    Here is section 75 which I think is quite relevant to this discussion and is what Marionbad is trying get at and what PDN is trying to avoid.
    75 Evidential presumptions about consentE+W
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved—
    (a)that the defendant did the relevant act,
    (b)that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, and
    (c)that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed,
    the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
    (2)The circumstances are that—
    (a)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, using violence against the complainant or causing the complainant to fear that immediate violence would be used against him;
    (b)any person was, at the time of the relevant act or immediately before it began, causing the complainant to fear that violence was being used, or that immediate violence would be used, against another person;
    (c)the complainant was, and the defendant was not, unlawfully detained at the time of the relevant act;
    (d)the complainant was asleep or otherwise unconscious at the time of the relevant act;
    (e)because of the complainant’s physical disability, the complainant would not have been able at the time of the relevant act to communicate to the defendant whether the complainant consented;
    (f)any person had administered to or caused to be taken by the complainant, without the complainant’s consent, a substance which, having regard to when it was administered or taken, was capable of causing or enabling the complainant to be stupefied or overpowered at the time of the relevant act.
    (3)In subsection (2)(a) and (b), the reference to the time immediately before the relevant act began is, in the case of an act which is one of a continuous series of sexual activities, a reference to the time immediately before the first sexual activity began.

    Now, this legislation is obviously aimed at a society not at war, but it still seems fairly clear that PDNs idea of “consent” is on fairly shaky ground. Whilst I have not looked at international law, or law relating to war, I would expect that it would be even more damning of this argument that a woman who has been captured by the enemy, after her family has been killed, consents to sex with her captor. To say that a woman in the circumstances being discussed “consents” to sex is actually quite disgusting.
    MrP



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


    PDN wrote: »
    And I did. It refers to two distinct incidents in very different circumstances. If you didn't want us to talk about what happened at Shiloh then you shouldn't have quoted the whole passage.

    It was a simple misunderstanding - no need to be snarky about that when there's plenty of substantive things that we disagree on.

    You might want to remember that the next time you make a comment like this

    You are spouting absolute drivel.

    that then turns out to be based on your misunderstanding. :rolleyes:
    PDN wrote: »
    No, it isn't, Virgins aren't mentioned in Deuteronomy 21. And nothing about taking wives is mentioned in Numbers 21.

    Both passages describe how the Israelites carried out war. They aren't exactly the same passage, otherwise I would have said look at Deuteronomy 21 and then for kicks look at Deuteronomy 21 again.
    PDN wrote: »
    It sounds like you're shoehorning again.

    It sounds like you have run out of a coherent response and are falling back on some rather childish arguing methods.
    PDN wrote: »
    And you've never made a comment about Christians or 'you guys' (as you like to put it) being biased, have you? :rolleyes:

    Pot. Kettle, Black

    Lots of times. I still continue to actually have arguments though. I response are not just a long rant about atheist agenda with no substantial counter arguments or rebutals to the points being made.
    PDN wrote: »
    So, just to clarify, you're posting at 3.30am and making sarcastic comments about the sky being black? :pac:
    Case in point ...
    PDN wrote: »
    Stated, and failed to support it with any evidence. There is no reference to rape in Deuteronomy 21. If there were you would have pointed to it by now instead of dancing around every time we ask you to point to it.

    Wow, we are really going to do this again. :rolleyes:

    Deut 21 describes taking wives from prisoners of war. There is no mention either way of whether the wives had a choice in this matter. I and a lot of others concluded that they didn't since prisoners of war tend not to be given that much choice in the matter.

    You said that you preferred the other interpretation, that the Israelites would have asked the women if they wished to be married out not, based on other passages not Deut 21 (which makes this annoyance that I'm referencing other passages in the Bible all the more silly and childish)

    Judges 21 contradicts this interpretation. The best counter argument you seem to be able to come up with is that Judges 21 was not a commandment from God, though you seem to be struggling to explain how this is relevant to explaining actions by the Israelites.
    PDN wrote: »
    Can we claim that Barack Obama ordered American soldiers to shoot children in Afghanistan?

    Yes if an American soldier shoots a child while working under the assumption that this is just a normal Obama ordered operation like all the others.

    As I pointed out about six times now taking of wives from captive prisoners is described as being sanctioned by God. You and I both agree that.

    If you have twenty missions ordered by Obama that ended up with dead children, and then on one missions that you don't know was ordered by Obama but the soldiers were doing what they had done before and killed children, it is safe to assume that in the other 20 missions the soldiers also killed the children.

    You know you are never going to find a passage in the Bible that explicately says that these soldiers raped these women. This is because, as Judges 21 demonstrated, they didn't think of forced marriage as rape. They also didn't think of consent as necessary for marrying prisoners of war.
    PDN wrote: »
    Wow! Where did the goal posts just go? :eek:

    Can you please link to where I made that argument?

    You may have missed it but I already did.
    PDN wrote: »
    My argument all along has been that there is no record in the Bible of God commanding the Israelites to rape anyone, and that therefore your assertion is flat out wrong.

    Why on earth would I argue that the Israelites (being sinful human beings) would never do anything nasty?

    Slit throat seems to be the argument. Hey man, I agree with you it is a stupid argument ;)
    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, because how soldiers behave when they are expressly disobeying orders makes it a flimsy argument that they might have behaved differently when they were obeying orders. :rolleyes:

    Point out the order that says that the Israelites should get the permission of the women slave before they marry them.


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


    MrPudding wrote: »

    Getting married for less than perfect reasons is one thing, getting married when you are effectively under duress is quite another.




    But the reason the woman is in the position she find herself in, having to make this choice, is due to the actions of the man, or his people. For a modern perspective here is the current UK legislation.
    First, the legal definition of rape:
    [/COLOR]
    Here is section 75 which I think is quite relevant to this discussion and is what Marionbad is trying get at and what PDN is trying to avoid.
    [/COLOR]
    Now, this legislation is obviously aimed at a society not at war, but it still seems fairly clear that PDNs idea of “consent” is on fairly shaky ground. Whilst I have not looked at international law, or law relating to war, I would expect that it would be even more damning of this argument that a woman who has been captured by the enemy, after her family has been killed, consents to sex with her captor. To say that a woman in the circumstances being discussed “consents” to sex is actually quite disgusting.
    MrP


    No, not 'consents to sex' - 'consents to marriage'.

    There is a world of difference between a captive consenting to sex with her captor, and a captive consenting to marriage (after a suitable period has elapsed) to a member of the victorious army.

    You're pretence that the two are the same, while not 'disgusting' is still underhanded. As is your incredible claim that I'm trying to 'avoid' applying a section of Twentieth Century UK law to a situation over 3000 years ago in the Near East.

    Amazingly enough, we're not discussing whether the events of Deuteronomy comply with UK legislation from the 1990's - we're discussiong whether God commanded the Israelites to rape anyone. And the stretching to try to say that He did is getting more bizarre with each new argument.

    Anyone want to offer an advance on Mr Pudding's claim? Perhaps someone wants to argue that God broke the rules of the Malahide Golf Club?


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


    I can't believe all these weeks later we're still talking about the same passage :pac:


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You might want to remember that the next time you make a comment like this

    You are spouting absolute drivel.

    that then turns out to be based on your misunderstanding. :rolleyes:

    Your argument was absolute drivel whether it applied to Shiloh or Jabesh Gliead. I've already explained the misunderstanding as to why I specificallly addressed one part of the passage you quoted rather than the other. But I fully understand why you prefer to bang on about that misunderstanding in order to ddeflect attention from the weakness of your argument.
    Both passages describe how the Israelites carried out war. They aren't exactly the same passage, otherwise I would have said look at Deuteronomy 21 and then for kicks look at Deuteronomy 21 again.
    No, they don't.

    Deuteronomy 21 describes how God, through Moses, ordered them to conduct themselves when waging war against a foreign city outside of the borders of Canaan. (Whether they actually obeyed these commands or not is a different issue). It describes how they are to treat the captives who are an inevitable consequence of a war prosecuted for other reasons.

    Judges 21 describes how the Israelites actually behaved in a very different context, namely a civil war where they were acting under their own sinful initiative rather than God's commands, and where they were prosecuting the war for the express purpose of abducting women.

    To continue to pretend that the one somehow describes the other, even after the differences have been pointed out to you, is quite laughable.
    Deut 21 describes taking wives from prisoners of war. There is no mention either way of whether the wives had a choice in this matter. I and a lot of others concluded that they didn't since prisoners of war tend not to be given that much choice in the matter.

    That pretty well sums up the threadbare nature of your argument.

    We've already established that the commands God gave the Israelites (give the prospective wives a month to mourn their parents, marry them, and if they are subsequently divorced then they must be given total freedom) were drastically different from how POWs were normally treated (grab who you want, and gang rape them). Yet you (and 'others', who coincidentally share your prejudices) conclude that God commanded rape, even though rape is not mentioned or hinted at, on the basis of what tends to happen with POWs.

    That's a real doozey of an argument you're presenting there.
    You may have missed it but I already did.
    No you didn't.

    This is exactly the kind of dishonest dodging that I referred to before.

    You have made a claim about me. Now I'm asking you to provide evidence to support that claim.

    My position all along on this issue has been that God did not command the Israelites to rape anyone.

    You made the following claim, "Remember your argument (which you have stated you aren't prepared to defend) is that the Israelites wouldn't do this, not that God wouldn't command it. "

    Please link to where I presented such an argument.

    Where did I ever state that my argument was that the Israelites would never commit rape? If I said it then it shouldn't be too hard for you to provide a link.


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


    PDN wrote: »
    Your argument was absolute drivel whether it applied to Shiloh or Jabesh Gliead.

    Oh my mistake, clearly it doesn't matter what I actually say, it will be absolute drivel anyway. Its almost as if you know it is absolute drivel before I even say it. ;)
    PDN wrote: »
    No, they don't.

    Deuteronomy 21 describes how God, through Moses, ordered them to conduct themselves when waging war against a foreign city outside of the borders of Canaan. (Whether they actually obeyed these commands or not is a different issue). It describes how they are to treat the captives who are an inevitable consequence of a war prosecuted for other reasons.

    Judges 21 describes how the Israelites actually behaved in a very different context, namely a civil war where they were acting under their own sinful initiative rather than God's commands, and where they were prosecuting the war for the express purpose of abducting women.

    Er again no. They were not prosecuting the war for the purpose of abducting women they were prosecuting the war because the town had failed to adhere it its oath. And like many times before they took the virgin women as prisoners of war and married them off.
    PDN wrote: »
    To continue to pretend that the one somehow describes the other, even after the differences have been pointed out to you, is quite laughable.

    No one claimed the two incidences are identical. But you are simply grasping at straws trying to find differences so you can say that the two are utterly unrelated when they are in fact incredibly similar.

    Or perhaps you want to explain how it being a disobedient Israelite town rather than Canaanite meant that they ignored the order (that you can't seem to find) to get consent from the captives.
    PDN wrote: »
    That pretty well sums up the threadbare nature of your argument.

    We've already established that the commands God gave the Israelites (give the prospective wives a month to mourn their parents, marry them, and if they are subsequently divorced then they must be given total freedom) were drastically different from how POWs were normally treated (grab who you want, and gang rape them). Yet you (and 'others', who coincidentally share your prejudices) conclude that God commanded rape, even though rape is not mentioned or hinted at, on the basis of what tends to happen with POWs.

    Er no (again). Rape is hinted at throughout the entire passages. Men are told to take from prisoners of wars wives if they desire them. No mention is ever made of asking the women for consent.

    Now you maintain that just because it is not mentioned that they did ask for consent doesn't mean they didn't ask for consent. This is ridiculous naive to my mind, but In Deut 21 I can't prove to you that they didn't ask for consent, any more than I can prove they didn't get down on their knees and pray to Zeus just before the marriage either.

    But we can look at Judges 21 and see how the Israelites conducted themselves with such prisoners of war. And here the notion of asking for consent is completely absent. There is no hint even that consent was something the Israelites were aware of or considered relevant.

    So to get to consent in Deut 21 we have to do even more mental gymnastics that you were already doing. Not only is there no hint that consent is sought but we know that the notion of asking for consent is not something the Israelites are familiar with.

    The arguments for reading Deut 21 any other way than how it was written (men if you desire a wife from the prisoners then simply take her as your wife) evapourate even faster.
    PDN wrote: »
    No you didn't.

    Er, yes I did but thank you for demonstrating you don't read my posts properly.:rolleyes:

    Let me quote you again
    PDN wrote: »
    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!


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er, no. Objective truth is not the same thing as objective morality. Objective morality is a thing (if it exists), where is truth is just a comment on a statement about reality.

    Wow! That's great. It only took you, what, 3 posts to address my point? Fantastisch! OK, so all you do here, all your endless arguments with any theist who steps up to the plate, is just comment on a statement about reality?

    Is your statement intend to be understood as objectively true, I wonder?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Objective morality could just as easily not exist at all.

    I agree (see, we can do it! :)) - without God I don't see how it could exist. But then again atheists like Stephen Law, Shelly Kagan and, I gather, Sam Harris would disagree with me. They do think objective morality exists without God.
    No you didn't. What you did was bring up desire when I was discussing morality. Either this was a deliberate act of misdirection and straw manning, or you didn't understand the difference between desire (what we want) and morality (what we believe to be correct behaviour).

    Ah, yes, false dilemmas. I'm either playing a dishonest game or I don't get it. Well played sir. Of course, it just is not possible that you are mistaken. Perish the thought! Or that I'm introducing something else into the discussion that I think is germane.
    Of course you don't agree. The issue is that you are fast running out of arguments for why you don't agree (which could explain why you are trying to distort what I'm saying by shifting the focus from morality to desire)

    If you are saying that morality and desire have no position being in the same conversation then that's your own hypothesis. I'm not straw-manning, misdirecting, distorting, shifting the focus or running out of arguments (what a list you generated, and in such a short period!) because I don't agree with you.

    I happen to think that desire and morality feed each other. I've explained why. But rather than addressing my words you instead accuse me of a litany of bad tactics.

    One other thing - could you please forego peppering your posts with *groans* *sighs* and the inevitable :rolleyes:? I'm not intending to be mean with this request. Rather, I believe that none of these things are helpful and only serve to frustrate your opponents.


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Lol, oh dear you really will argue the sky is black won't you.

    Perhaps. But as a criticism coming from you it is deeply ironic.


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


    Wow! That's great. It only took you, what, 3 posts to address my point? Fantastisch! OK, so all you do here, all your endless arguments with any theist who steps up to the plate, is just comment on a statement about reality?

    Is your statement intend to be understood as objectively true, I wonder?

    I'm sorry, what does does this have to do with what I said?
    Ah, yes, false dilemmas. I'm either playing a dishonest game or I don't get it. Well played sir. Of course, it just is not possible that you are mistaken.

    Well er no Fanny, since we were discussing morality and then all of a sudden you introduced desire into the mix, right at a time when it was convenient for your argument to change from discussing morality to discussing desire. You introduced it as a rebuttal to an argument I didn't make.

    I never mentioned desire once, nor does desire have anything to do with what I'm talking about. If you want to introduce desire then you can explain its relevance to the subject. Simply introducing the idea that Christianity leads you to do things against your desires as if this is some how a rebuttal to the argument that your morality determines your interpretation of Christianity, so not relevant to the discussion.
    One other thing - could you please forego peppering your posts with *groans* *sighs* and the inevitable :rolleyes:? I'm not intending to be mean with this request. Rather, I believe that none of these things are helpful and only serve to frustrate your opponents.

    That is the point. When people straw man my arguments, criticize me when it is in fact a mistake on their part, use purposeful misdirection etc etc it is annoying and I wish to express this annoyance in the hope that the posters stop doing it in the future. But then I've always been a dreamer.


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


    Perhaps. But as a criticism coming from you it is deeply ironic.

    Thats funny. A while ago PDN put the same charge to me, that I never listen and never change my position based on anything a Christian says.

    I happily listed off many examples of where I did just that, where a Christian had argued that my interpretation of the Bible was in error and I changed my interpretation.

    I then asked PDN can he provide examples of where he changed his position on the Bible or Christianity based on something an atheist argued for on this forum.

    No reply to this was made. Perhaps PDN just missed the request :pac:


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


    Zombrex, that is not misrepresentation. I think you've beyond that into flat out lying.

    Since the end of November I have been presenting a consistent argument throughout this issue, namely that there is nothing, other than an argument from silence and a vague assumption on the basis of how people normally tend to treat POWs, to support the assertion that God commanded rape.

    Then, on the 14th of December (post 1036) I responded to marienbad's question where she expressed the misunderstanding that I was saying Israelite soldiers were somehow different from other soldiers throughout history who have raped their captives:
    PDN wrote:
    They may have, for all I know. And they may well have been different for all you know. But that is not what we've been discussing in this thread. We've been discussing whether God commanded them to rape anyone.

    marien ignored that and made the same claim again. So I responded in post 1039, also on December 14th:
    PDN wrote:
    I have stated that there is no evidence to support the assertion that God commanded the Israelites to rape anyone. I have expressed no opinion as to whether rapes actually occurred or not.

    marien still didn't seem to get it. So I had to post again the same day in post 1046:
    PDN wrote:
    Then that raises the obvious question as to why you misrepresent my views. I read my own posts, which is why I know that I never claimed that the Israelites never raped anyone. I addressed the assertion that God commanded anyone to commit rape.

    Empirical knowledge of how armies behave (although my friends who served in the Irish army as UN peacekeepers might disagree with your sweeping generalisations) has no relevance to the subject we have been discussing for many pages now - namely the assertion by atheists that God, in the Bible, commanded rape.

    On the 26th of December (post 1488) in reply to tommy2bad (any relation to marienbad? :pac:) I stated:
    PDN wrote:
    Btw, for what it's worth I think rape probably did take place. Rape occurs in every society and culture - because human nature is pretty rotten. That, of course, is not the point. The point is that certain atheists are claiming that God somehow commanded rape (even in a passage where it isn't mentioned).

    In post 1630 yesterday I stated:
    PDN wrote:
    Yes, what happened in Shiloh was indeed disgusting. And that is why the Chapter finishes by stressing that what the people did was an example of people just doing what they feel like. Which is why we need God.

    Nothing whatsoever to do with your previous argument that God commanded rape - but nice stretch anyway.

    Also, yesterday in post 1657 I stated:
    PDN wrote:
    You're right. You don't care. You start a discussion by alleging that God commanded rape, and then you don't care whether Judges 21 is actually relevant to God commanding anything or not. That pretty well sums it up.

    Now, on the 27th of December (post 1547), after repeatedly stressing that my argument all along has been whether God commanded rape, not whether rape actually occurred, I discussed with Morbert about the plausibility of the view that the women were not to be forced to marry screaming and kicking against their will. I said, "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!"

    Now, any honest person can easily see my point there. That not many men would want such a marriage, so it is plausible that the arrangements commanded by God would not involve such coercion. I certainly did not state, and never have stated, that the Israelites would never behave in such a way.

    Then you come along, today, and claim
    Wicknight wrote:
    Remember your argument (which you have stated you aren't prepared to defend) is that the Israelites wouldn't do this, not that God wouldn't command it.

    For you to present that as somehow being evidence that my position all along has been that the Israelites would never behave such a way - rather than my true position (which has consistently been that we have no evidence of God commanding rape) is an act of gross dishonesty on your part.

    And where, by the btw, did I ever make the claim that I would not defend my non-existent argument that the Israelites wouldn't rape anyone. That is another blatant untruth. So I'm asking you to link to where I said that, or to apologise for that porkie too.

    I'm calling on you here and now to apologise for stating falsehoods about me.


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


    Zombrex wrote: »
    I never mentioned desire once, nor does desire have anything to do with what I'm talking about.

    You get how discussions go, don't you? You write. I write. I'm not obliged to stick to your script.

    I never said you mentioned desire - let's get that straight. In fact, I mentioned desire ONCE because it was germane to a point I was making.
    If you want to introduce desire then you can explain its relevance to the subject. Simply introducing the idea that Christianity leads you to do things against your desires as if this is some how a rebuttal to the argument that your morality determines your interpretation of Christianity, so not relevant to the discussion.

    And I have explained how it is relevant on more than one occasion. I never stated that it was a rebuttal to the argument that morality determines your interpretation largely because I'm not arguing against this. I responded that desire can influence morality and vise versa. You have never replied to this other than kicking up a fuss.

    But fine, I'll drop the point I made about desire. Let's pretend that I never replied to your psychoanalysis.
    That is the point. When people straw man my arguments, criticize me when it is in fact a mistake on their part, use purposeful misdirection etc etc it is annoying and I wish to express this annoyance in the hope that the posters stop doing it in the future. But then I've always been a dreamer.

    Fine. If that's what you think. But I'll tell you now that from were I'm standing it comes across as superior and patronising behaviour.

    It's all deflection with you. Rabbit hole after rabbit hole. It's your special skill. My reason for initially talking to you is buried under the detritus of another train wreck of a thread. Rabbit holes and redefining words to suit your own ends.

    Not for the first time I am stepping out of a discussion with you. There is no understanding to be had. Our ears are closed to each other.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    PDN wrote: »
    No, not 'consents to sex' - 'consents to marriage'.

    There is a world of difference between a captive consenting to sex with her captor, and a captive consenting to marriage (after a suitable period has elapsed) to a member of the victorious army.
    The consent to marriage is more likely than not under duress. If you can’t see that then I think there is omsething seriously wrong, or you are working really hard at denial.

    Besides, you have already agreed that the marriage would involve sex, therefore it is reasonable to treat the consent to marriage and consent to sex as two separate issues, unless you are going to argue that a husband can’t rape his wife?

    PDN wrote: »
    You're pretence that the two are the same, while not 'disgusting' is still underhanded. As is your incredible claim that I'm trying to 'avoid' applying a section of Twentieth Century UK law to a situation over 3000 years ago in the Near East.
    I believe the question that Marien asked was would these activities be considered rape today. In order to decide that I think it is reasonable to look at what rape is. No?

    PDN wrote: »
    Amazingly enough, we're not discussing whether the events of Deuteronomy comply with UK legislation from the 1990's - we're discussiong whether God commanded the Israelites to rape anyone. And the stretching to try to say that He did is getting more bizarre with each new argument.
    If you are simply using an argument, similar to the Muslim argument on marital rape, that as it was not considered to be rape at the time, so it is not rape, then I think you have somewhat missed the point of the discussion.

    PDN wrote: »
    Anyone want to offer an advance on Mr Pudding's claim? Perhaps someone wants to argue that God broke the rules of the Malahide Golf Club?
    Ah, you old staple of misrepresenting and mocking. Well done PDN, you are a credit to moderators everywhere.

    MrP



  • Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭beerbuddy


    PDN wrote: »
    I'm prepared to accept that it includes the possibility of rape, or the possibility that the women were carried away by UFOs, or indeed the possibility of just about anything else. That's what an argument from silence gives you.

    Now, will you please answer my question? Where in the passage is there any indication, no matter how slight, that women were given the choice between death or consenting to sex?

    I second that


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


    MrPudding wrote: »
    you have already agreed that the marriage would involve sex,

    I think the point was more that the law was against sex outside of marriage i.e. sex would involve marriage.
    therefore it is reasonable to treat the consent to marriage and consent to sex as two separate issues,

    Not eally by their law at that time one could not consent to sex without fiorst consenting to marriage one is temporally contingent on the other.
    I believe the question that Marien asked was would these activities be considered rape today. In order to decide that I think it is reasonable to look at what rape is. No?

    No because I already pointed out the prochronictic reasoning invovled. Also it is a principle of Criminal Law that one can not apply it retrospectively.

    ]If you are simply using an argument, similar to the Muslim argument on marital rape, that as it was not considered to be rape at the time, so it is not rape, then I think you have somewhat missed the point of the discussion.

    You are the one quoting current acts . You do realise thatsomeone could not be charged under the 2003 Act if the "crime" happened in 2002?

    Zombrex wrote: »
    Oh my mistake, clearly it doesn't matter what I actually say,

    Oh it does! You don't seem to remember you said God commanded rape.
    Er again no. They were not prosecuting the war for the purpose of abducting women they were prosecuting the war because the town had failed to adhere it its oath. And like many times before they took the virgin women as prisoners of war and married them off.

    Or didn't and used them as servants? You realise this passage is about the plight of the tribe of Benjamin and is an exceptional case?
    No one claimed the two incidences are identical. But you are simply grasping at straws trying to find differences so you can say that the two are utterly unrelated when they are in fact incredibly similar.

    The motivation is entirely different. In one it is a war against people who cursed them, in the other part of their own "race" are being appeased and to do so they can't break their own laws.
    Rape is hinted at throughout the entire passages. Men are told to take from prisoners of wars wives if they desire them. No mention is ever made of asking the women for consent.

    Hinted at? so no proof there then?
    Nice climbdown.
    Whatever happened to you "God commanded rape" line.

    In Deut 21 I can't prove to you that they didn't ask for consent,
    any more than I can prove they didn't get down on their knees and pray to Zeus just before the marriage either.

    Or any more than you cant not prove a double negative.
    You are committing a logical fallacy here. Just because people believe something not stated is true (e.g. that they worshipped Zeus - which by the way would also be anachronistic) does not mean that all unstated things can be assumed to be false.

    thank you for demonstrating you don't read my posts properly.:rolleyes:
    I read wher you claimed that God ordered rape. You seem to think we all read incorrectly?
    You made that claim didn't you?


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Siege a city, kill the men and women, take the virgins. Seems pretty similar PDN.

    Difference shown above.
    So you have run out of counter-arguments

    Please look up "burden of evidence" . No counter argument needs be presented. You claimed "god ordered rape" and you backpeddled and twisted on that hook and changed and watered it down. But you made that claim and you need to say you were wrong and you can't support it. Just admit you were wrong can't you?
    As I have stated many times at this point that God commanded force marriage and rape in Deuteronomy.
    The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them.

    Where is your support that the concept of consent was alien to them?
    Whether the Israelites were actually acting under God's orders or not, they were carrying out war as they understood it. How would they understand that consent was irrelevant if that was not how they had carried out all their "just" wars previously. You seriously think that it is plausible that when they were carrying out sieges and slavery under the commandment of God they considered the wishes of the women they captured, but when they just thought they were they didn't?

    More obfuscation! You now try to say the "God ordered it" but is not important - when it was your original claim! You also try the "bait and switch" argument wher you take other things which God commanded like siege or slavery and try to attribute rape to then by extension.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    Getting married for less than perfect reasons is one thing, getting married when you are effectively under duress is quite another.
    Indeed it isn't marriage at all!

    But the reason the woman is in the position she find herself in, having to make this choice, is due to the actions of the man, or his people. For a modern perspective here is the current UK legislation.

    Which is not retrospective even to 2002!

    Now, this legislation is obviously aimed at a society not at war, but it still seems fairly clear that PDNs idea of “consent” is on fairly shaky ground. Whilst I have not looked at international law, or law relating to war, I would expect that it would be even more damning of this argument that a woman who has been captured by the enemy, after her family has been killed, consents to sex with her captor. To say that a woman in the circumstances being discussed “consents” to sex is actually quite disgusting.

    Any such woman would be acting outside Jewish Law since the Jews had a law against sex outside marriage whether it was consentual or not.

    marienbad wrote: »

    It is not up to anyone to prove anything surely. I am correct in saying that for a lot of Christians the bible in the beginning and end of it - is that not so ?

    And for others it is not so. Extra Biblical sources also exist. Why for example did the early Christians look to for 300 years before they had a single Volume Bible?
    Also it IS for those making claims to prove them or atthe very least offer a valid test which will falsify them.
    Do we need special guidance before we can interpret it, ? that was certainly the position of the Catholic Church when I was growing up .

    Yes . for starters you need the special skill of being able to read. Knowing Latin Greek or Hebrew might also help. Learning scholarship might also help. But very few Christians are "pick and mix" Unitarian like "make it up as you go along" . If you are really interested try reading the anti Nicean fathers.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Novermber 1 "oldest first" option
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75757421&postcount=722
    from thios thread which shows Zombrex trotting out the "God ordered rape" line.
    Of course he has dropped that claim by now without saying so.
    I stand corrected. Having climbed down for lack of support he slipped it back in again!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW , all you have added there is that the guy only married her so he would not be in ''sin'' when he had is way with her.

    PDN All your comparisions from the 2nd world war etc , are just ridiculous .AndI suspect that at some level you have to know it.

    A war takes place the women are taken captive and given a choice of ''marriage''- or servitude and you don't see a problem in this ?

    We are all agreed that all this followed on from God's instructions where the consequences were clearly known.

    And those consequences would have included some cases of forced rape.

    Put the question on any other forum and that would be the inevitable conclusion.


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


    I believe the question that Marien asked was would these activities be considered rape today. In order to decide that I think it is reasonable to look at what rape is.
    From Wikipedia;
    Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent.

    Rape is also now recognized as an element of the crime of genocide when committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a targeted group.
    I think we are talking about rape in the contentious passage (oo er missus!) from a 20 or 21st century perspective. Might not be seen as such at the time but then again God dosn't do time.
    It was wrong then as now and to be fair the existence of this rule shows that their was an awareness of this.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    PDN All your comparisions from the 2nd world war etc , are just ridiculous .AndI suspect that at some level you have to know it.

    Not at all, they are all relevant to determining ethical issues. They are illustrations, btw, not comparisons.

    A war takes place the women are taken captive and given a choice of ''marriage''- or servitude and you don't see a problem in this ?
    No, 'the women' are given one option of servitude. A few of them, however, have a choice of marriage instead.

    I see plenty of problems with war and captivity. What I don't see is rape.
    We are all agreed that all this followed on from God's instructions where the consequences were clearly known.
    That depends what the consequences are. You seem to think that you know some consequences for which there is no evidence.
    And those consequences would have included some cases of forced rape.
    So you keep saying. But, unfortunately, the number of times you keep saying it doesn't make it true. We've been asking for a month now of evidence that God commanded rape. Despite increasingly desperate and convoluted arguments, and (on the part of other posters rather than yourself) some outright lies - but the evidence for rape is singularly lacking.
    Put the question on any other forum and that would be the inevitable conclusion.
    That depends which forum you're talking about. We are on this forum, and we try not to comment on the antics of other fora.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW , all you have added there is that the guy only married her so he would not be in ''sin'' when he had is way with her.

    No it isn't all. We are not told they only married for sex. We are told other things such as they should respect women.
    PDN All your comparisions from the 2nd world war etc , are just ridiculous .AndI suspect that at some level you have to know it.

    Comparing a Biblical war with a world war is not valid? How so?
    A war takes place the women are taken captive and given a choice of ''marriage''- or servitude and you don't see a problem in this ?

    I do! I see a huge logical fallacy problem with an "excluded middle" and a "false dichotomy"
    We are all agreed that all this followed on from God's instructions where the consequences were clearly known.
    I guess we are all agreed that you are not asking people to agree as a question butissuing it as an order.
    And those consequences would have included some cases of forced rape.

    You have been shown ther are two iussues.
    1. God ordered rape - you have produced no evidence for this
    2. Maybe they raped women anyway? - you were shown whwhil possible whythis would be unlikely and how iot has nothing to do with 1
    Put the question on any other forum and that would be the inevitable conclusion.

    That is just an accusation of bias! You are suggesting Christianity isn't reasonable. So on what basis do you suggest only in Christianity could the "rape happened" be unsupported and that anywhere else it would be? Do Christians somehow use a different logic to other people? If it can be proved ther then feel free to prove it here. Where did God order rape?


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


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    From Wikipedia;


    Rape is also now recognized as an element of the crime of genocide when committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a targeted group.
    I think we are talking about rape in the contentious passage (oo er missus!) from a 20 or 21st century perspective. Might not be seen as such at the time but then again God dosn't do time.
    It was wrong then as now and to be fair the existence of this rule shows that their was an awareness of this.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76021352&postcount=1087
    It is important to understand that God has never condoned any type of sexual activity outside of a lawful marriage. The only way that an Israelite would be morally justified in having sexual intercourse with a female captive was if he made her his wife, granting to her the rights and privileges due to a wife...
    Deuteronomy 21:13-14 discusses the treatment of captive women.
    When the skeptics’ allegations about God condoning rape are demolished by the very clear instructions in Deuteronomy 21, the attack is usually shifted, and God is accused of being unjust for allowing war prisoners or slavery of any kind, regardless of whether or not rape was permitted. While these allegations about slavery have been dealt with decisively in other places, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that shifting the argument to slavery is a red herring to draw attention away from the original accusation that God condoned rape.

    For the skeptic to imply that God condoned rape, using Numbers 31, without mentioning Moses’ instructions in Deuteronomy 21, is unconscionable. It is simply another instance of dishonest propaganda designed to discredit God and the Bible. The irony of the skeptics’ position is that if atheism is true, the skeptic has no grounds upon which to claim that rape is morally wrong


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


    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all, they are all relevant to determining ethical issues. They are illustrations, btw, not comparisons.



    No, 'the women' are given one option of servitude. A few of them, however, have a choice of marriage instead.

    I see plenty of problems with war and captivity. What I don't see is rape.


    That depends what the consequences are. You seem to think that you know some consequences for which there is no evidence.


    So you keep saying. But, unfortunately, the number of times you keep saying it doesn't make it true. We've been asking for a month now of evidence that God commanded rape. Despite increasingly desperate and convoluted arguments, and (on the part of other posters rather than yourself) some outright lies - but the evidence for rape is singularly lacking.


    That depends which forum you're talking about. We are on this forum, and we try not to comment on the antics of other fora.


    And the number of times you keep denying it dos'nt make untue either.

    Well as you said your self earlier one of the consequences of marriage (including forced marriage)is sex- in some peoples book that is rape.

    We are not going to agree on this , so again I challenge you to put the question on another forum.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    And the number of times you keep denying it dos'nt make untue either.

    I don't have to deny anything. All I'm doing is asking you for some evidence to back up your assertion.

    We've been over this so many times. If all you can offer is an argument from silence then there's nothing of substance for anyone to deny.
    Well as you said your self earlier one of the consequences of marriage (including forced marriage)is sex- in some peoples book that is rape.

    Yes, sex is normally one of the consequents of marriage. But it would only be rape if force or coercion was involved - and that is something you haven't come close to demonstrating.
    We are not going to agree on this , so again I challenge you to put the question on another forum.
    Why on earth would I put a question about Christian understandings of the Old Testament on another forum?

    It's bad enough discussing it in this thread with barmpots who spout off about stuff they know nothing about. You think it would be better on a forum where the mods wouldn't even have a clue about the Old Testament or the culture of the Ancient Near East? Lol.

    If you can't make a convincing case here among people who know about the Old Testament, then I don't see how you're going to be any more convincing in the Cricket Forum.


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


    marienbad wrote: »
    And the number of times you keep denying it dos'nt make untue either.

    Which is just another fallacy! You are claiming it is true. it is not for others to prove the negative. the burden is on your shoulders.
    Well as you said your self earlier one of the consequences of marriage (including forced marriage)is sex- in some peoples book that is rape.

    Forced marriage isn't marriage!
    Forced sex is rape! It is non consensual. How else do you define rape?
    Another fallacy affirming the consequent - look it up -
    Given All communists have beards
    And given ISAW has a beard
    it is illogical to conclude
    ISAW is a communist

    All rape is sex without consent
    Marriage preceeds sex
    You cant conclude marriage preceeds rape.
    We are not going to agree on this , so again I challenge you to put the question on another forum.

    Put it yourself if you wish and when everyone agrees with you come back here and claim you have unanimous approval that God ordered rape in the Bible.


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


    PDN wrote: »
    I don't have to deny anything. All I'm doing is asking you for some evidence to back up your assertion.

    We've been over this so many times. If all you can offer is an argument from silence then there's nothing of substance for anyone to deny.



    Yes, sex is normally one of the consequents of marriage. But it would only be rape if force or coercion was involved - and that is something you haven't come close to demonstrating.

    Why on earth would I put a question about Christian understandings of the Old Testament on another forum?

    It's bad enough discussing it in this thread with barmpots who spout off about stuff they know nothing about. You think it would be better on a forum where the mods wouldn't even have a clue about the Old Testament or the culture of the Ancient Near East? Lol.

    If you can't make a convincing case here among people who know about the Old Testament, then I don't see how you're going to be any more convincing in the Cricket Forum.

    Why would you assume that only people on here know more about the old testament than on other forums ? Some may some, may not.

    Look PDN , it is not about proving anything one way or the other, it is about interpretation.

    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.

    You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent, and that what happened with Galileo when he recanted or Moriscos abjured their faith, or Tosca bowed to Scarpia, were all examples of consent. But in the real world people do not acept an either/or choice as consent .

    They did'nt then and they don'nt now. Just because it was the way of the world and they choose the lesser of evils is a long way from consent.

    That is all it comes down to and all the rest on either side is just smoke and mirrors.

    Now unless you are prepared to accept the challenge of putting the question on another forum I am done with you.


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


    All rape is sex without consent yes
    Marriage preceeds sex often as not
    You cant conclude marriage preceeds rape.Who did?
    The problem is that a marriage as we understand it didn't exist then.
    An arranged marriage that was not consensual was not unknown. You can claim it wasn't a marriage but the guy getting married would conceder it lawful and deny the sex was rape. The same with coercive or constrained marriages.

    As to God commands rape, give it up were not saying that it says in the bible...(c)
    The case is that what we now would consider rape is sanctioned in biblical texts. Christians claim the bible is the word of God... can you see how some confusion would occur ?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement