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
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
The question was why did you choose to follow God without any proof?
Actually it wasn't. The question was why I embraced a blind belief in God.
However, I'm happy to address your new question. We make most choices without proof. I'm not even sure that definitive proof exists outside of mathematics.
I chose to follow God because, in my judgement, the evidence for doing so outweighed any contrary evidence.0 -
It boils down to this - "“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible" - St. Thomas Aquinas.
Faith is a gift from God, a gift that many people choose to reject.0 -
Grand, set that objection aside. It's not like it has anything to do with what I was talking about. Answer this question: Should you believe in something because lots of other people believe it?
No. But the reasons other people believe it might contribute to the overall reasons I believe it.Great. What reasons do you have to trust in God? How did you come to the conclusion of God being a trustworthy chap without ever having met him first hand?
But I did meet him first hand. And I experience him in my life and find that what he says is the case turns out to be the case. Persistently enough for me to suppose that will always be so.Where is the evidence that he exists?
Where is the evidence that anything exists? There isn't any. What happens is that you start with making assumptions about the reality as you perceive it and where things appear to make sense to you there doth you go. God is part of the reality I perceive and his existing in fact makes more sense of reality than if I were to suppose I am deluded in to thinking God is there.That's just it. Supposedly no one is on a par with God and no one can comprehend him, that's why we can't question what he does. But take the Flying spaghetti Monster. He Exists. Just in a way that's beyond Human comprehension. You can't refute his existence.
We are made in the image and likeness of God and therefore do understand things of God to an extent. We understand what is right and wrong for example (with right being a reflection of God and wrong being a reflection of what is anti_God). I understand why something is wrong as a result (it's contra God's nature).
That doesn't mean I understand everything of God. Or that I have to.Hate that phrase in this context. It's so demeaning to the Human race.
If God then 'only' is a fitting word for humans.Which part of my beliefs are nonsensical to you?
Lot's of them. For instance, the belief that the product (you) of a meaningless, directionless, somewhat accidental and random process could conclude it is the product of a meaningless, directionless and somewhat accidental and random process and say that that conclusion is a reliable one.Excellent side step. I asked a simple question. Why believe in the Christian God and not some other version?
None of the other gods (not even the naturalistic ones) reconcile all the observations as well. Bear in mind, I've got a category of observations in the mix which you don't quite have - we might refer to them a spiritual observations. It's the totality of the reality I perceive that requires explaining and God does it best.
And bear in mind that you don't sidestep my including your particular gods in your musings. God, the FSM and Naturalistic Origins.0 -
Basically The secons is the same as the first.
It is saying keep the female children asindentured servancs
i.e. dont kill them
It is not saying "rape them"
You are asserting "for yourselves" = "rape"
On what evidence is that based?
I am going to discuss this in terms of the more specific answer PDN has given:PDN wrote:First of, women who were not virgins were perfectly acceptable as wives - remember Rahab the harlot from Jericho? Or the widows in Deuteronomy who were given time to mourn for their husbands?
The reason why the Midianites were judged so harshly was because they had used their women to entice the Israelites at Peor into sexually immorality (a sin for which God had already judged the Israelite men). Moses gave these instructions (about virgins) so that none of the women involved in that mass strategic seduction would live. The only women who survived were virgins who, by definition, were not involved in that incident.
It is not an isolated incident in the Bible. Deuteronomy 21:13-14 discusses the treatment of captive women.
"And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."
The only time the will of the woman is mentioned is if the man has no delight in her. It very clearly implies forced marriage and rape, even if the women is granted a month to come to terms with it. I have been looking through apologetics websites, and they all rely on the omission of 14 to make their case.
And Exodus 21:7-10
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. "
This is the most "positive" translation I can find, and it is still very clear that marriage and "marriage duties" had nothing to do with the will of the woman.
I have discussed this with other Christians, and they have also tendered a good explanation for this treatment of women, and the general cruelty found in the OT.
God is revealed in the New Testament. The Israelites were the people chosen to bring about this revelation, but their understanding of the nature of God was no more refined than the "Gott mitt uns" slogan used by the Nazis. Thus, they took their behaviour as the will of God, and recorded it as such in the Bible, when in reality is was in complete opposition to the will of God. They did not understand that God's will does not require cruelty and barbarism to be carried out, a fact demonstrated by the rise of Christianity in the face of persecution.
To use the primary teacher analogy:A primary teacher teaches you about the natural numbers. You cannot take a larger natural number from a smaller natural number. This is absolutely true under the natural number system. But if a child is presented with two real numbers, they will mistakenly declare that you cannot take a the larger from the smaller. The teacher has never said this is the case, but the child has applied his misunderstanding of what the teacher said. It should also be made clear that this misunderstanding is inevitable, and not a fault of the child. But the misunderstanding of the Isrealites is due to the fault of them, of all mankind, as they choose to move away from God by sinning.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is not an isolated incident in the Bible.
It isnt an incident of rape at all!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333Deuteronomy 21:13-14 discusses the treatment of captive women.
"And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."
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. Notice that the Israelite male could not “go in to her” (a euphemism for sexual intercourse) until she had observed a period of mourning and cleansing, and he could only “go in to her” with the intent of being her husband.
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 (Butt, 2005a), 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 (Butt, 2005b).The only time the will of the woman is mentioned is if the man has no delight in her. It very clearly implies forced marriage and rape, even if the women is granted a month to come to terms with it. I have been looking through apologetics websites, and they all rely on the omission of 14 to make their case.
Wrong! the above source specifically mentions 14
In fact it points out that duties and rights are accorded to wives.And Exodus 21:7-10
"And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
And thatis evidence of rape???If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
As above so below. Hopping off into slavery etc. is still not dealing with rape? Wher is the evidence of rape?This is the most "positive" translation I can find, and it is still very clear that marriage and "marriage duties" had nothing to do with the will of the woman.
Another off topic red herring which has nothing to do with rape.I have discussed this with other Christians, and they have also tendered a good explanation for this treatment of women, and the general cruelty found in the OT.
And AGAIN you are off into other issues and not rape!God is revealed in the New Testament. The Israelites were the people chosen to bring about this revelation, but their understanding of the nature of God was no more refined than the "Gott mitt uns" slogan used by the Nazis. Thus, they took their behaviour as the will of God, and recorded it as such in the Bible, when in reality is was in complete opposition to the will of God. They did not understand that God's will does not require cruelty and barbarism to be carried out, a fact demonstrated by the rise of Christianity in the face of persecution.
And again you try the "link Christianity to the Nazis" ruse! Your continual rambling into other unsupported allegations are not dealing with the claim of rape!To use the primary teacher analogy:
i.e., to commit yet another fallacy of argument form ignorance. The teacher doesnt tell you the whole truth so you think you have it - again nothing to do with rape.
False analogy.0 -
Okay. where
Where did God order people to commit rape?
Well Deuteronomy 21 for a start. I see that Morbet has already discussed that passage with you. You seem to have found an apologetic web site that states it is not rape because they are married.
Do you believe a husband can rape his wife? If you believe there is no such thing as forced non-consensual sexual contact in a marriage, including a forced marriage, then I can see why you would not accept this was rape.
Ill let PND say what PDN said. I don't believe he stated rape was an accurate description of what God commanded.
No, he stated it was inaccurate.
He didn't make an appeal (at least not by the end) on the basis that God wouldn't do that, which is what most of the other appeals from others are based on and which brings me back to the original point, that people see their own morality reflected in God, not the other way around.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »A point of clarification, Simtech - I did address your question. You even thanked me for it. Perhaps others apart form PDN and myself also responded. On top of that I thought that I had also provided a number of links that specifically sought to offer a theodicy. But maybe not.
David B Hart attempts to answer the problem of natural evil here. Additionally, Paul Copan, who recently enough wrote a book entitled Is God A Moral Monster, was in discussion with an atheist on the topic of God's actions as recorded in the OT. See here for a link to a link. There are many other attempts to address these age old questions, and while some are better than others, all of them will fail to give a completely satisfactory answer. This is no surprise.
It is interesting that a lot of Jews and Christians feel the need to attempt to find an answer at all though, isn't it.0 -
I think the generally accepted modern definitions are as follows;Soul Winner wrote: »Atheist - The view that there is no God. In other words the belief that there is no God. Doesn't believe in God.
Agnostic - Neither believes nor disbelieves in God
???????? - Believes there is no God
The agnostic option is an oxymoron position
Atheist - The view that there is no God. In other words the
belief that there is no God. Doesn't believe in gods. (Just as you said)
Theist Believes in one or more gods.
Agnostic - Does not have sufficient knowledge of a particular proposition to make a definitive pronouncement on whether it is true or false. Not necessarily connected to religion.
Agnostic theist Believes there is a God or gods, but acknowledges it can't be proven. The lukewarm theists.
Agnostic Atheist - Believes there is no God, but acknowledges it can't be proven. The most common atheist.
????????Those who seek proof where none is needed, or those who have it where none is possible. These are the oxymoron positions:)
You're right, nobody asserted it. It's your own strawman!Nobody here, as far as I can see, has asserted that everyone dies because of their own wickedness - so better to put that straw man to bed.
You did say earlier however, that some went to hell for being wicked, and presumably those kind would deserve a famine;We know that Jews who were trusting in the promise of the coming Messiah went to Paradise. We are also told that some wicked people went to hell.
Of course there are other exacerbating factors, but the main cause of a drought induced famine is...... lack of rain. For which the victims are not personally responsible. God is. If you want a clearer example, why does God make/allow an innocent child die of leukaemia?Do you really think that anyone dies purely because of a lack of rain in one area - now or 500 years ago? You don't think that human migration patterns, wars, unjust social and economic structures, or harmful religious folklore practices throughout history have contributed at all?
The problem with that analogy, which I think originally PDN used to justify the atrocities of the OT while adhering to the more socially acceptable NT himself, is that the teacher did say it was the case. The entire OT is supposed to be the unchanging word of God.To use the primary teacher analogy:A primary teacher teaches you about the natural numbers. You cannot take a larger natural number from a smaller natural number. This is absolutely true under the natural number system. But if a child is presented with two real numbers, they will mistakenly declare that you cannot take a the larger from the smaller. The teacher has never said this is the case, but the child has applied his misunderstanding of what the teacher said.0 -
Judge;
"Israelites, you stand here accused of statutary rape. You went into a town murdering and pillaging. You killed all the men and ugly women. You took the children to be your slaves. You took the good looking virgins for your harems. You took possession of all their land.
How do you plead?"
Israelites;
"Not guilty M'lud. We gave the gals a month to settle into the harem, and after reconsidering their new situation, most of them agreed to give consent. The others we killed."
Judge;
"Fair enough. Acquitted!"
:mad:0 -
Advertisement
-
You're right, nobody asserted it. It's your own strawman!
Er, no, I'm quite sure you raised it - not me.
I'm sorry that you presume such things. It sounds pretty horrible to me - but I defend your right to believe such things. Personally I would rather have compassion on Somali famine victims rather than trying to pin blame on them.You did say earlier however, that some went to hell for being wicked, and presumably those kind would deserve a famine;
No-one, apart from you, has suggested that the victims are personally responsible. This really is like talking to a blooming wall.Of course there are other exacerbating factors, but the main cause of a drought induced famine is...... lack of rain. For which the victims are not personally responsible.
Ok, nothing at all to do with overpopulation or unjust socio-economic structures that force people to live on the edge of a desert with such limited resources that one bad harvest wipes them out? Why bother with such factors when you can blame a God of the gaps. How convenient.God is.
Why should I waste my time repeating answers that you appear to incapable of reading?If you want a clearer example, why does God make/allow an innocent child die of leukaemia?
Hey, cut & paste is my friend -
The Christian position is that this world was made good - but that the sinful decisions and choices of men have marred it. Sadly it is often the case that those who suffer the most are the powerless who are affected by decisions made by others. Our actions have consequences - for others as well as for ourselves.0 -
Judge;
"Israelites, you stand here accused of statutary rape. You went into a town murdering and pillaging. You killed all the men and ugly women. You took the children to be your slaves. You took the good looking virgins for your harems. You took possession of all their land.
How do you plead?"
Israelites;
"Not guilty M'lud. We gave the gals a month to settle into the harem, and after reconsidering their new situation, most of them agreed to give consent. The others we killed."
Judge;
"Fair enough. Acquitted!"
:mad:
OK, before we go any further, let's give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you're not trolling or just downright lying.
Where does any passage mention killing the ugly women?
Where are harems mentioned?
Where does it mention that captives who refused to marry their captors were killed?0 -
"Quote" me then.Er, no, I'm quite sure you raised it - not me.
Ok, so the victims are good, but the perpetrators are bad? Yet God does not lift a finger to stop the bad people (the ones who cause famine and leukaemia)No-one, apart from you, has suggested that the victims are personally responsible......
The Christian position is that this world was made good - but that the sinful decisions and choices of men have marred it....
The original big question remains; Why does God let bad things happen to good people?0 -
It isnt an incident of rape at all!
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333
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. Notice that the Israelite male could not “go in to her” (a euphemism for sexual intercourse) until she had observed a period of mourning and cleansing, and he could only “go in to her” with the intent of being her husband.
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 (Butt, 2005a), 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 (Butt, 2005b).
Wrong! the above source specifically mentions 14
In fact it points out that duties and rights are accorded to wives.
They do not mention 14. They mislabel the lines, and only quote Deuteronomy 21:10-13
Detueronomy 21:14
"And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her."And thatis evidence of rape???
As above so below. Hopping off into slavery etc. is still not dealing with rape? Wher is the evidence of rape?
Another off topic red herring which has nothing to do with rape.
And AGAIN you are off into other issues and not rape!
You dishonestly omitted the two important lines.
"And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish."And again you try the "link Christianity to the Nazis" ruse! Your continual rambling into other unsupported allegations are not dealing with the claim of rape!
i.e., to commit yet another fallacy of argument form ignorance. The teacher doesnt tell you the whole truth so you think you have it - again nothing to do with rape.
False analogy.
That was not in relation to the rape argument, and was actually an argument that God doesn't support rape, and that the cruelty of the OT stemmed largely from the Israelites themselves, not God. And the Nazi slogan was brought up as a misunderstanding of God's will.
Please, before you respond, take the time to read what I write a few times.0 -
No-one, apart from you, has suggested that the victims are personally responsible......"Quote" me then.
The Christian position is that this world was made good - but that the sinful decisions and choices of men have marred it.... [/QUOTE]
Ok, so the victims are good, but the perpetrators are bad? Yet God does not lift a finger to stop the bad people (the ones who cause famine and leukaemia)
The original big question remains; Why does God let bad things happen to good people?[/QUOTE]
As I said earlier - free will means your choices have consequences. And often the powerless suffer because of the choices of the powerless.
Free will would be pretty meaningless if, everytime you were about to hurt anyone else God would intervene with a giant pillow. Sin is terrible, really really terrible, and its consequences are horrible, both for ourselves and for others. And that is why any philosophy that fails to take account of that fact is woefully inadequate.0 -
And the Nazi slogan was brought up as a misunderstanding of God's will.
It's a bit of an urban legend, actually. Gott Mitt Uns was used by the German Army as far back as the First World War. The SS, who were the Nazi wing of the military, had the more secular slogan of Meine Ehre heißt Treue ('My honour is loyalty').0 -
-
OK, before we go any further, let's give you an opportunity to demonstrate that you're not trolling or just downright lying.
Where does any passage mention killing the ugly women?
Where are harems mentioned?
Where does it mention that captives who refused to marry their captors were killed?
Deuteronomy 20:10-14;
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
It's well known that the higher status Israelite man enjoyed the company of more than one wife. The culture in Afghanistan nowadays is the closest example we have today to their code of behaviour;
"As a polygynous society, the Israelites did not have any laws which imposed marital fidelity on men. Adulterous married women and adulterous betrothed women, however, were subject to the death penalty by the biblical laws against adultery, as were their male accomplices. According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, if a pregnant woman was suspected of adultery, she was to be subjected to the Ordeal of Bitter Water, a form of trial by ordeal, but one that took a miracle to convict. The literary prophets indicate that adultery was a frequent occurrence, despite their strong protests against it, and these legal strictnesses". source0 -
Deuteronomy 20:10-14;
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."
Deuteronomy 21
10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
So where does it say that they killed the ugly women?It's well known that the higher status Israelite man enjoyed the company of more than one wife. The culture in Afghanistan nowadays is the closest example we have today to their code of behaviour;
"As a polygynous society, the Israelites did not have any laws which imposed marital fidelity on men. Adulterous married women and adulterous betrothed women, however, were subject to the death penalty by the biblical laws against adultery, as were their male accomplices. According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, if a pregnant woman was suspected of adultery, she was to be subjected to the Ordeal of Bitter Water, a form of trial by ordeal, but one that took a miracle to convict. The literary prophets indicate that adultery was a frequent occurrence, despite their strong protests against it, and these legal strictnesses". source
Where in the text does it mention a harem?
Where does it mention that captives who refused to marry their captors were killed?0 -
Actually, not even me; we all agree they did not deserve their fate. So that's a new strawman appearing.No-one, apart from you, has suggested that the victims are personally responsible......
Now here's that other strawman you came up with (in case you have forgotten which one it was) ;Nobody here, as far as I can see, has asserted that everyone dies because of their own wickedness - so better to put that straw man to bed.
I disagree; one persons freedom extends only until another's begins - basic secular ethics or morality.Free will would be pretty meaningless if, everytime you were about to hurt anyone else God would intervene with a giant pillow..
Good answer, the only logical one, but one which paints God in a bad light. It implies that he could intervene, but he chooses not to. In the next life everything will be fair and just, but we humans f***ed up this one for him, and now he's in some sort of sulk, whereby he won't fix anything that goes wrong with it.The Quadratic Equation wrote: »That will be answered to your satisfaction, when you explain to my satisfaction why there should be no free will and God should have heaven on earth ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Firstly, if the captive women did not give their consent, then it was rape, and you already said that the word "rape" was not specifically mentioned, which I accept is true. If we are to say there was no rape, then those not giving consent had to be killed. If they were not killed, then they were raped.
So where does it say that they killed the ugly women?
Where in the text does it mention a harem?
Where does it mention that captives who refused to marry their captors were killed?
Secondly, we are reading a text here in modern English, of something which was originally written thousands of years ago, and was transcribed and translated many times through various languages by people who were not native speakers. (eg Aramaic, Ancient Greek). There is no point in you screaming "Show me the exact word."0 -
Firstly, if the captive women did not give their consent, then it was rape, and you already said that the word "rape" was not specifically mentioned, which I accept is true. If we are to say there was no rape, then those not giving consent had to be killed. If they were not killed, then they were raped.
Claptrap! We don't know whether they gave consent or not. Any assertion that they were coerced into marriage has not been supported from the text, only from the imagination of yourself and other atheists.
It is totally untrue to claim that if they were not raped then they were killed. You have zero evidence to back that invention up. It is entirely possible that they said 'No' and remained as domestic servants.
No way. You don't get off with making trollish and untruthful comments, and then trying to weasel out of that dishonesty by waffling about translations.Secondly, we are reading a text here in modern English, of something which was originally written thousands of years ago, and was transcribed and translated many times through various languages by people who were not native speakers. (eg Aramaic, Ancient Greek). There is no point in you screaming "Show me the exact word."
We are dealing with the Old Testament text in the Christianity Forum. We deal with what the text says - not some vague drivel that you think it might have said before some imagined translation.
I have a Hebrew Old Testament in front of me as I type this post. It doesn't say that they killed the ugly women. It doesn't mention harems. And it doesn't say that the women who refused to marry their captors were killed.
Now, are you going to withdraw your untruthful remarks or not? We keep this thread open to facilitatedebate between Christians and atheists - but we are under no obligation to provide a platform for people to flat out lie.
Where does the Bible (in Hebrew or English will be equally acceptable) say that they killed the ugly women?
Where does it mention harems (you might want to go and get a dictionary and understand the difference between 'polygamy' and 'harem')?
Where does it say that women who refused to marry their captors were killed?0 -
Secondly, we are reading a text here in modern English, of something which was originally written thousands of years ago, and was transcribed and translated many times through various languages by people who were not native speakers. (eg Aramaic, Ancient Greek). There is no point in you screaming "Show me the exact word."
I've largely been watching from the sidelines but this comment drew me out. You can not argue from silence and have your position maintain its credibility.
"Ugh, actually we don't know what they said, and even though I'm making very specific claims that are not supported by the texts, I happen to have enough confidence in the sources - extant or those I made up - if they portray Judaism and Christianity in a bad light."
That is not being consistent or fair, I'm afraid.
Either show us the evidence or withdraw it. Hell, I'd even think that quietly dropping it would be acceptable at this stage. It's certainly a better course of action then putting your head down and charging against a brick wall.0 -
You mean a copy of the Tanakh? How's your Aramaic and Classical Hebrew then? This discussion is complicated enough in English.I have a Hebrew Old Testament in front of me as I type this post. It doesn't say that they killed the ugly women. It doesn't mention harems. And it doesn't say that the women who refused to marry their captors were killed.Fanny Cradock wrote: »I'd even think that quietly dropping it would be acceptable at this stage. It's certainly a better course of action then putting your head down and charging against a brick wall.
I'll leave it so. Its a question of interpretation of the texts. If there was only one interpretation, there would be only one Christian denomination.
In summary though, two points remain;
1. The degree of sexual consent and/or the relative beauty of these particular women is a minor issue in the overrall context of murder, slavery and genocide as described generally in the OT.
2. If God lets bad things happen to good people, either he is powerless to stop it or he chooses not to stop it. That is the dilemma.0 -
Once again I've become sick of this thread. It really is a terrible excuse of a debate, one in which I've unfortunately been sucked into a few times. In the entire 1105 posts since this thread was started, has anyone on either side been convinced by the other?! Just reading the posts here sinks me into a mire of disillusionment. People aren't going to be swayed by an on-line debate. It takes something more for that. I hope I won't be sucked into this again, because it really is disheartening to follow. Goodbye.0
-
You mean a copy of the Tanakh? How's your Aramaic and Classical Hebrew then? This discussion is complicated enough in English.
The text is in biblical Hebrew, not in Aramaic. My Hebrew is a bit rusty, but good enough to follow the text.
No, we are not going to let you pull that little piece of trickery.I'll leave it so. Its a question of interpretation of the texts. If there was only one interpretation, there would be only one Christian denomination.
You made claims that by any interpretation are not in the text. That is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of honesty.
You claimed that the Israelites killed the ugly women. That was not a matter on interpretation. It was an invention.
You made claims about harems (places of seclusion in Arabic culture where groups of women live together separate from the men). The text does not mention harems, and you have shown no evidence that the Israelites maintained such a practice.
You claimed that women who refused to marry their captors were killed. That was not a matter of interpretation. It was a fabrication.
That is true.1. The degree of sexual consent and/or the relative beauty of these particular women is a minor issue in the overrall context of murder, slavery and genocide as described generally in the OT.
The only reason we have been discussing it for so long is the propensity of anti-Christians to make accusations and assertions they cannot back up.
It's a false dilemma, one that we've discussed before, and one we will no doubt discuss again.2. If God lets bad things happen to good people, either he is powerless to stop it or he chooses not to stop it. That is the dilemma.
But I, for one, will not discuss it with someone who fabricates untruths and then, when challenged to back them up or withdraw them, resorts to mealy-mouthed waffle about interpretation and translations.0 -
Once again I've become sick of this thread. It really is a terrible excuse of a debate, one in which I've unfortunately been sucked into a few times. In the entire 1105 posts since this thread was started, has anyone on either side been convinced by the other?! Just reading the posts here sinks me into a mire of disillusionment. People aren't going to be swayed by an on-line debate. It takes something more for that. I hope I won't be sucked into this again, because it really is disheartening to follow. Goodbye.
Sometimes it is not just about trying to convince 'the other side'. That is unlikely to happen in the course of one thread, but perhaps people will pick up the scent of an idea and follow it and perhaps come to a different understanding months or years from now.
What something like this should be about, I would suggest, is an effort to understand the position of the 'the other side' and figure out together a way to exist in a civil manner along side each other. One does not have to agree with 'the other side', one does not even have to respect their beliefs or views (although I would encourage a respect for the person), but one might learn tolerance for one's fellow Man within the bounds of no harm being called.
I would continue to engage, if I were you, largely for that reason.0 -
Cato Maior wrote: »Sometimes it is not just about trying to convince 'the other side'. That is unlikely to happen in the course of one thread, but perhaps people will pick up the scent of an idea and follow it and perhaps come to a different understanding months or years from now.
What something like this should be about, I would suggest, is an effort to understand the position of the 'the other side' and figure out together a way to exist in a civil manner along side each other. One does not have to agree with 'the other side', one does not even have to respect their beliefs or views (although I would encourage a respect for the person), but one might learn tolerance for one's fellow Man within the bounds of no harm being called.
I would continue to engage, if I were you, largely for that reason.
Nice as that sounds, it isn't what happens here. Out in the real world I am completely tolerant of my peer's views and beliefs, but the whole idea of this thread doesn't allow for that. Each side is only trying to promote their own view and destroy the argument of the other as ruthlessly as possible. How can one be sincere when discussing beliefs they genuinely think idiotic?0 -
Cato Maior wrote: »Sometimes it is not just about trying to convince 'the other side'. That is unlikely to happen in the course of one thread, but perhaps people will pick up the scent of an idea and follow it and perhaps come to a different understanding months or years from now.
What something like this should be about, I would suggest, is an effort to understand the position of the 'the other side' and figure out together a way to exist in a civil manner along side each other. One does not have to agree with 'the other side', one does not even have to respect their beliefs or views (although I would encourage a respect for the person), but one might learn tolerance for one's fellow Man within the bounds of no harm being called.
I would continue to engage, if I were you, largely for that reason.
I agree. I certainly would not expect any of the protagonists in this thread to suddenly, as a result of debate, have a blinding flash and a Damascus Road conversion.
I think both Christians and Atheists often suffer from a delusion that they have some magic bullet of an argument that is going to devastate the other side. Invariably this turns out to be a damp squib - often because they haven't actually taken the time to discover what the other side actually believes. To be honest this thread tends to be the mirror image of those posters who go on to A&A and think they've got irrefutable proof of God's existence.
There are problems, I believe, with both the Christian and Atheist positions. And theoretically this thread could be a place where reasoned discussion could take place. I'm perfectly happy to admit, for example, that there are aspects of the Bible that I find deeply troubling. However, in practice that kind of debate always gets eclipsed by the nonsense where someone, in their eagerness to land a killer blow (or maybe just from cuttiing and pasting from some extreme partisan website) makes ludicrous claims that cannot be substantiated, or just makes stuff up.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nice as that sounds, it isn't what happens here. Out in the real world I am completely tolerant of my peer's views and beliefs, but the whole idea of this thread doesn't allow for that. Each side is only trying to promote their own view and destroy the argument of the other as ruthlessly as possible. How can one be sincere when discussing beliefs they genuinely think idiotic?
I don't think that's true. I certainly am not trying to destroy someone's belief in Atheism. Also, over the years there have been many Atheists, such as Bertrand Russell and Anthony Flew, who have produced strong arguments that would create some wonderful debates.
It's not our fault that the current crop of Atheists tend not to be so well read or well versed in philosophy.
But you can hardly blame the Christians here for protesting when you misrepresent their beliefs, or make claims about the Bible which, upon examination, turn out to be false.
A common example is where someone claims to have discovered a contradiction in the Bible. When we look closer we invariably find, as with language in general, that there are two or more perfectly plausible interpretations. One interpretation would involve a contradiction - the other doesn't (I'm talking plausible here, not stretching words to mean something they don't, or reading something that isn't there). It is hardly unfair for Christians to point out that such a scenario doesn't actually constitute a contradiction.
Nor, I think, is it reasonable to blame us if we are less than convinced when the Atheist insists, often in the face or recognised scholarship, that their interpretation (the one that involves a contradiction) just has to be the only valid one. When pressed to demonstrate why, we get a lot of bluster - and eventually they cry, "You Christians are just too biased and brainwashed! Anyway, why are you bothering arguing about this when we all know that God is a genocidal murderer anyway!"
Whether they think God is a genocidal murderer or not, they cannot expect us to be impressed by the argument that "This particular interpretation is the only correct one, even if scholars think otherwise, because I say so!"
And, I might add, those who go into the A&A forum to try to convince the Atheists that there really is a God fare no better.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement