Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN · 28-12-2011 7:30pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, and it is true to say that God sanctioned this , is that not also correct ?

Yes, that would be correct.

This is very slow.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 7:34pm

Zombrex wrote: »

While theists, particularly Christians, like to appeal to notions of objective morality when this is examined it turns out that the objective morality in the vast majority of cases matches their own subjective beliefs (I say theists but I mean all humans, it is just some humans don't realize this the case, theism is almost universally defined by notions of objective morality handed down by supernatural authority)

Yes, you are very fond of telling us this. I'm happy to see that you acknowledge that it is a human trait - albeit one that I gather deep down you are convinced that you have been inoculated against. There are certain aspects of Christianity morality that I find very difficult to accept because they run contrary to my desires. I know I'm not the only Christian who feels the same way.

But what has any of this got to do with my conjecture that objective morality exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not? That's why I brought in objective truth as a direct analogy.

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way they are drawn to religions that match up with what they already hold to be true, rather than the other way around.

That may or may not be the case. Either way it has nothing to do with my point.

philologos · 28-12-2011 7:39pm

marienbad wrote: »

Come on PDN , if the passage was in any other book you would accept that it at least included the possibility of rape. It is not those of us that can see that that are being unreasonable.

The point is that when you read books, you tend to look for what is explicit rather than adding to it mentally. In numerous other parts of the Bible rape is actually explicitly mentioned as being unfavourable, both in the Jewish law, and in the historical books of the Old Testament. So I go with what is explicit, I.E that the Bible regards rape as being fundamentally wrong rather than making up what I want to add into the passage.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 7:45pm

philologos wrote: »

The point is that when you read books, you tend to look for what is explicit rather than adding to it mentally. In numerous other parts of the Bible rape is actually explicitly mentioned as being unfavourable, both in the Jewish law, and in the historical books of the Old Testament. So I go with what is explicit, I.E that the Bible regards rape as being fundamentally wrong rather than making up what I want to add into the passage.

Any particular passages?

philologos · 28-12-2011 7:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Any particular passages?

2 Samuel 13:1-39
Genesis 34:1-31

There are also laws concerning rape in Deuteronomy.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 7:53pm

PDN wrote: »

Yes, that would be correct.

This is very slow.

Indeed it it PDN , so now we come to the nub of the issue- could that sex be regarded as rape ? can we at least agree that that is a valid question to be posed ?

philologos · 28-12-2011 7:56pm

marienbad: You could take a sentence and imagine anything into it. However, when it comes to this, it's probably wiser to take the explicit meaning of the sentence, especially since the Bible condemns rape explicitly in its pages.

PDN · 28-12-2011 8:00pm

marienbad wrote: »

Indeed it it PDN , so now we come to the nub of the issue- could that sex be regarded as rape ? can we at least agree that that is a valid question to be posed ?

It's a valid question, inasmuch as any question is valid.

Of course the answer to the question is clearly 'No'. Unless you've caught the habit of another poster who redefines language to suit himself.

I don't think, by any reasonable definition, offering to marry someone and so improve their socio-economic position is therefore rape.

Imagine the conversations we could have:
Rich Man: "Please will you marry me. I have a beautiful house and a good job, and I would be honoured if you would come and be my wife. I want to take you away from all this poverty."
Poor Woman: "Rape! He just threatened to rape me!"

marienbad · 28-12-2011 8:12pm

PDN wrote: »

It's a valid question, inasmuch as any question is valid.

Of course the answer to the question is clearly 'No'. Unless you've caught the habit of another poster who redefines language to suit himself.

I don't think, by any reasonable definition, offering to marry someone and so improve their socio-economic position is therefore rape.

Imagine the conversations we could have:
Rich Man: "Please will you marry me. I have a beautiful house and a good job, and I would be honoured if you would come and be my wife. I want to take you away from all this poverty."
Poor Woman: "Rape! He just threatened to rape me!"

Now it is you that is imposing a meaning that is not explicitly stated- ''marrying someone to improve their economic status'' - Surely not, otherwise why exclude the women who were not virgins.

The issue is simply does the sex in these marriages constitute rape or not , and if not why not ? And of course if yes then why yes .

And part of that issue is the matter of consent . Given an either/or choice - is that consent ?

All of the above questions by any reasonable standard are explicit in the text.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 8:18pm

philologos wrote: »

2 Samuel 13:1-39
Genesis 34:1-31

There are also laws concerning rape in Deuteronomy.

I am more than willing to be educated here philologos but those passages are more about incest and circumcision than rape ,are they not ?

PDN · 28-12-2011 8:25pm

marienbad wrote: »

Now it is you that is imposing a meaning that is not explicitly stated- ''marrying someone to improve their economic status'' - Surely not, otherwise why exclude the women who were not virgins.

So you can't see that marrying an Israelite man and a property owner was an improvement in socio-economic terms from being a domestic servant or slave?

I'm not sure what virgins have got to do with that point at all, particularly since virgins aren't even mentioned in the passage we are discussing (deuteronomy 21)?

The issue is simply does the sex in these marriages constitute rape or not , and if not why not ? And of course if yes then why yes .

And the answer is simply 'No'. Why not? That is fairly obvious, because rape means something forced, and we have no indication that these marriages were forced.

And part of that issue is the matter of consent . Given an either/or choice - is that consent ?

Every choice is either/or. That's what 'choice' means. You either choose one thing or you choose something else.

These women were captives. They were going to be domestic servants or slaves. Some of them might get an offer of marriage. We have no reason to presume other than that they could choose to accept marriage, or choose not to. Where's the rape?

All of the above questions by any reasonable standard are explicit in the text.

No, they're implicit in your head. If they were explicit in the text then you could quote them. That's what 'explicit' means.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 8:28pm

PDN wrote: »

So you can't see that marrying an Israelite man and a property owner was an improvement in socio-economic terms from being a domestic servant or slave?

I'm not sure what virgins have got to do with that point at all, particularly since virgins aren't even mentioned in the passage we are discussing (deuteronomy 21)?

And the answer is simply 'No'. Why not? That is fairly obvious, because rape means something forced, and we have no indication that these marriages were forced.

Every choice is either/or. That's what 'choice' means. You either choose one thing or you choose something else.

These women were captives. They were going to be domestic servants or slaves. Some of them might get an offer of marriage. We have no reason to presume other than that they could choose to accept marriage, or choose not to. Where's the rape?

No, they're implicit in your head. If they were explicit in the text then you could quote them. That's what 'explicit' means.

Did these women freely consent to be married as we would understand it ?

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 8:36pm

marienbad wrote: »

I am more than willing to be educated here philologos but those passages are more about incest and circumcision than rape ,are they not ?

I don't know how you got that.

Genesis wrote:

1 Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. 2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her. 3 And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. 4 So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, “Get me this girl for my wife.”

5 Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. 6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. 7 The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done.

2 Samuel wrote:

But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 She answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate[a] me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. 13 As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.” 14 But he would not listen to her, and being stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her.

[...]

But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated his sister Tamar.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 9:03pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know how you got that.

As I said I am more than willing ro be educated, but in the first instance if you read on down the objection seems to be more about circumcision than rape

In the second instance it is brother and sister , or am I reading it incorrectly ?

I will re-read again in a more modern edition.

PDN · 28-12-2011 9:34pm

marienbad wrote: »

Did these women freely consent to be married as we would understand it ?

I really don't know why you keep asking the same questions and somehow expecting a different answer. So I'll say it again: We don't know, because the passage doesn't tell us.

How many times are we going to go through this routine before you understand that an argument from silence is always going to run into a brick wall? The passage doesn't mention consent, and it doesn't mention a lack of consent. Neither (despite your strange last post) does it mention virgins.

They almost certainly wouldn't have had the same range of choices that most western women would expect today, but then neither did anyone else in those times.

PDN · 28-12-2011 9:37pm

marienbad wrote: »

As I said I am more than willing ro be educated, but in the first instance if you read on down the objection seems to be more about circumcision than rape

No, it isn't. Her brothers used circumcision as an under-handed ploy to exact vengeance for the rape of their sister.

Fanny Cradock · 28-12-2011 9:37pm

It's not about education. You simply have to read the passages carefully.

For example, the story in Genesis is about how the sons of Jacob, after learning of their sisters rape, lulled Shechem and Hamor into a false sense of security by talking about circumcision. All along their plan was to set up some hoops for Shechem and Hamor to jump through in order to gain their trust. This subterfuge was the means by which they delivered the coup de grâce. Circumcision plays no significant role in the story other than serving as a red herring.

Whether this act of retribution was in proportion to the original crime is, as far as I can see, not discussed in the verses. Indeed, the account ends with Jacob lamenting the trouble that his sons have brought on his house. And the final line of the passage should leave you in no doubt as to how Dinah's brothers viewed the rape of their sister.

Incidentally, the ESV is a modern translation. If it isn't making sense then you may want to try the NIV.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 9:48pm

PDN wrote: »

I really don't know why you keep asking the same questions and somehow expecting a different answer. So I'll say it again: We don't know, because the passage doesn't tell us.

How many times are we going to go through this routine before you understand that an argument from silence is always going to run into a brick wall? The passage doesn't mention consent, and it doesn't mention a lack of consent. Neither (despite your strange last post) does it mention virgins.

They almost certainly wouldn't have had the same range of choices that most western women would expect today, but then neither did anyone else in those times.

So it is not consent as we understand it then ?

PDN · 28-12-2011 9:55pm

marienbad wrote: »

So it is not consent as we understand it then ?

No, that isn't what I said at all. :mad:

Flipping heck, if you manage to read meanings into my posts that obviously aren't there, then it's hardly surprising that you do the same thing with Deuteronomy.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 10:05pm

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't what I said at all. :mad:

Flipping heck, if you manage to read meanings into my posts that obviously aren't there, then it's hardly surprising that you do the same thing with Deuteronomy.

Ok then, we can use your wording, they had to make a choice, was that a free choice as we would understand it ?

ISAW · 28-12-2011 10:08pm

PDN wrote: »

I really don't know why you keep asking the same questions and somehow expecting a different answer. So I'll say it again: We don't know, because the passage doesn't tell us.

I agree "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a fallacy. the onus is oin the claimant

How many times are we going to go through this routine before you understand that an argument from silence is always going to run into a brick wall? The passage doesn't mention consent, and it doesn't mention a lack of consent. Neither (despite your strange last post) does it mention virgins.

To be fair the one I was discussing does

Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

"not known a man" = virgin
"keep for yourselves" does not = rape

PDN · 28-12-2011 10:15pm

ISAW wrote: »

To be fair the one I was discussing does

Yes, but that one doesn't mention marriage, or indeed any sexual relations.

PDN · 28-12-2011 10:16pm

marienbad wrote: »

Ok then, we can use your wording, they had to make a choice, was that a free choice as we would understand it ?

Again, without seeing anything in the text to suggest otherwise, it would be a free choice. Their choices may have been limited, but I see nothing to say they weren't free.

ISAW · 28-12-2011 10:21pm

marienbad wrote: »

Now it is you that is imposing a meaning that is not explicitly stated- ''marrying someone to improve their economic status'' - Surely not, otherwise why exclude the women who were not virgins.

That has already been addressed. Buther you go...
Why were the men and non-virgin women killed?

Numbers 31:17-18 refers to Baalem and the people of the city. The Moabites as descendants of Lot were a special case.
The Midianites conspired with the Moabites to curse Israel (Num 22:1-7). When the curse was turned into a blessing instead (24:10-11), the Moabite and Midianite woman agreed to seduce the Israelite men and in doing so entice them to serve their idols (25:1-9, 31:15-16, Rev 2:14). The Israelites who fell prey to this and engaged in idolatry were also held responsible, and were executed (25:4-5). Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared.

WE already dealt with "did God command rape" - no
So how about "did they rape anyway?"
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/numbers31.html

It's theoretically possible that some of the soldiers raped the women, but given the circumstances it seems very unlikely. The soldiers would have known that rape was a violation of both the law and the instruction to purify themselves, as shown above; they had also seen God punish such violations with death during their travels in the desert. In fact, they had recently experienced a plague and executions resulting from their relations with Midianite women (25:1-9), as Moses reminded them. At that time, all those who had sexual relations with the Midianites were killed. It's highly implausible that the soldiers would have wanted to have anything to do with the Midianite women given this context.

So what did happen to the women (and children)? God gave the Israelites permission to marry women they took captive, but they were to treat their wives with respect: the women were to have time to mourn their families first, and were not to be mistreated (Dt 21:10-14). Those who didn't marry would have become servants, but there were rules against mistreating them as well (Ex 21:26-27, Dt 23:15-16)

The issue is simply does the sex in these marriages constitute rape or not , and if not why not ? And of course if yes then why yes .

They were to treat their wives with respect. And they could only have sex with wives.

And part of that issue is the matter of consent . Given an either/or choice - is that consent ?

How does a marriage exist if there is no consent? By law that isn't marriage.

marienbad · 28-12-2011 10:23pm

PDN wrote: »

Yes, but that one doesn't mention marriage, or indeed any sexual relations.

what does ''keep alive for yourselves '' mean then ? if it is servitude or something else why does she need to be a virgin ?

marienbad · 28-12-2011 10:27pm

PDN wrote: »

Again, without seeing anything in the text to suggest otherwise, it would be a free choice. Their choices may have been limited, but I see nothing to say they weren't free.

Well was she free to say '' no thanks to marriage or servitude , I think I will just leave at this point''

PDN · 28-12-2011 10:43pm

marienbad wrote: »

what does ''keep alive for yourselves '' mean then ? if it is servitude or something else why does she need to be a virgin ?

To keep as servants or slaves.

It has already been explained three times in this thread why they had to be virgins. Do I really have to go over it a fourth time?

Well was she free to say '' no thanks to marriage or servitude , I think I will just leave at this point''

No, of course she wasn't. Now what has that got to do with anything we've been discussing?

tommy2bad · 28-12-2011 10:54pm

OK at this stage it obvious that anything but some proof-text that contains the words "I command you to rape" and From the mouth of God at that! will not convince some people that God didn't only command rape but formalized it as a aid to genocide.
Or that was the spin put on it in the OT. Choose to believe what you will but an edited document written by the victors isn't a reliable source. Pity the Canaanites left no books or the other tribes that the Israelites replaced. Pitty the Israelites left no Canaanites.

Zombrex · 28-12-2011 10:59pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, you are very fond of telling us this. I'm happy to see that you acknowledge that it is a human trait - albeit one that I gather deep down you are convinced that you have been inoculated against.

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.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There are certain aspects of Christianity morality that I find very difficult to accept because they run contrary to my desires.

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.

There is a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral.

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.

While one may pretend that they would choose hedonism given the choose the reality is quite different.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But what has any of this got to do with my conjecture that objective morality exists whether we choose to acknowledge it or not? That's why I brought in objective truth as a direct analogy.

The existence of objective morality is largely irrelevant until someone can come up with a way to objectively verify it.

It is like one person saying there is a green tea pot behind Saturn and another person saying no you are wrong it is in fact red.

You can pick the red tea pot or you can pick the green tea point and say that the colour is objectively true. But since in reality you have no idea whether these is the case or not you are simply picking which ever has subjective appeal to you.

Same principle with religion.

PDN · 28-12-2011 11:00pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK at this stage it obvious that anything but some proof-text that contains the words "I command you to rape" and From the mouth of God at that! will not convince some people that God didn't only command rape but formalized it as a aid to genocide.
Or that was the spin put on it in the OT. Choose to believe what you will but an edited document written by the victors isn't a reliable source. Pity the Canaanites left no books or the other tribes that the Israelites replaced. Pitty the Israelites left no Canaanites.

That is a total irrelevance.

We are debating the allegation that the Bible represents God as commanding the Israelites to commit rape.

The atheists began by saying, "The Bible says that God commanded rape."

Now they're saying, "Well maybe the Bible doesn't actually say God commanded rape - but it doesn't expressly state that he didn't!"

Now it seems that you're suggesting that their argument should be, "Well, if a different book other than the Bible had been written, then it might mention rape!"

How much more of this nonsense are we supposed to put up with?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments