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
1…5455575960…327

Comments

  • Options
    #1682
    Zombrex
    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!


  • Options
    #1683
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #1684
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #1685
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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.
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #1686
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    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
  • Options
    #1687
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #1688
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #1689
    MrPudding
    Registered Users 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



  • Options
    #1690
    beerbuddy
    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


  • Options
    #1691
    ISAW
    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
  • Options
    #1692
    marienbad
    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.


  • Options
    #1693
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users 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.


  • Options
    #1694
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #1695
    ISAW
    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?


  • Options
    #1696
    ISAW
    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


  • Options
    #1697
    marienbad
    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.


  • Options
    #1698
    PDN
    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.


  • Options
    #1699
    ISAW
    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.


  • Options
    #1700
    marienbad
    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.


  • Options
    #1701
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users 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
  • Options
    #1702
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.
    No He didn't.
    Deuteronomy is ascribed to Mosses and most probably was texts collected at the time of Joshua. Its not Gods tablets of stone or the Voice of God. It the laws of the tribes of Israel.


  • Options
    #1703
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


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

    For the same reason that I assume that the regular posters on the Cricket forum will be more likely to know about the fielding restrictions during a 20/20 Batting Powerplay than will the regular posters on the LGBT Forum.

    It's hardly rocket science. The posters on particular fora frequent those same fora because they have an interest in, and therefore tend to have more knowledge on, the subject matter.

    It is lunacy to suggest that if posters in the appropriate forum don't find your arguments convincing then you can issue a challenge for them to meet you in an entirely different forum.
    Look PDN , it is not about proving anything one way or the other, it is about interpretation.
    Which is why I've insisted all allong that there are two plausible interpretations - but you and a few atheists seem determined to prove that the only correct interpretation is the one that suits you.
    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 .

    Judging by the amount of red herrings you're raising there, I'm thinking you're angling to take this to the Fishing Forum (see what I did there).
    Now unless you are prepared to accept the challenge of putting the question on another forum I am done with you.

    Ok, let's take it to the Cricket Forum, but I still think you'll be on a sticky wicket. I'll let you start the thread. In order to slip it past the Cricket Mods I suggest you entitle the thread - "Bowling a Maiden Over".


  • Options
    #1704
    The Quadratic Equation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭The Quadratic Equation


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Do we need spin doctors to tell us how to apply it to our lives. No.

    Just as long as you don't confuse the professional theologians thoughout history and in the present who have studied the scirptures for their entire lives with said "spin doctors".


  • Options
    #1705
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    For the same reason that I assume that the regular posters on the Cricket forum will be more likely to know about the fielding restrictions during a 20/20 Batting Powerplay than will the regular posters on the LGBT Forum.

    It's hardly rocket science. The posters on particular fora frequent those same fora because they have an interest in, and therefore tend to have more knowledge on, the subject matter.

    It is lunacy to suggest that if posters in the appropriate forum don't find your arguments convincing then you can issue a challenge for them to meet you in an entirely different forum.


    Which is why I've insisted all allong that there are two plausible interpretations - but you and a few atheists seem determined to prove that the only correct interpretation is the one that suits you.



    Judging by the amount of red herrings you're raising there, I'm thinking you're angling to take this to the Fishing Forum (see what I did there).


    Ok, let's take it to the Cricket Forum, but I still think you'll be on a sticky wicket. I'll let you start the thread. In order to slip it past the Cricket Mods I suggest you entitle the thread - "Bowling a Maiden Over".

    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator


  • Options
    #1706
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator

    Oh marien, marien! You need to learn to read posts in the 'spirit' in which they were written. :)


  • Options
    #1707
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    PDN wrote: »
    Oh marien, marien! You need to learn to read posts in the 'spirit' in which they were written. :)

    well as you have The Holy Spirit in your corner whats the point


  • Options
    #1708
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


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

    Why would you assume "argument from ignorance " is proof of anything?
    It is a fallacy. "We just don't know whether X is true or not " is not proof that X is true!"
    Look PDN , it is not about proving anything one way or the other, it is about interpretation.

    Look marienbad it not about "this is just my opinion and that makes my opinion about UFO's/ unicorns/the Bible" equal to anyone else!

    If you make a claim about UFOs Unicorns or The Bible then it IS for you to support that claim!
    God commanded that these women be taken in marriage and that sexual relations ensue.

    No he didn't even do that!
    And "I like what I get" isn't the same as "I get what I like
    You can believe that this is all by consent and not forced consent,

    forced consent is NOT 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.

    Galileo was wrong according to the knowledge at the time that he had ! His dialogue on two worlds was a false dichotomy. He didnt mention the Tychonic system! And he knew about it. But it is a different issue.
    That is all it comes down to and all the rest on either side is just smoke and mirrors.

    No it does not! If you claim "God commanded rape" THE BURDEN IS ON YOU to support the claim with evidence.
    Now unless you are prepared to accept the challenge of putting the question on another forum I am done with you.

    I.e. you can't support your claim so you resort to argument from ignorance which is just compounding fallacies.


  • Options
    #1709
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more bull&^t waffle and trivialising, you are a disgrace as a moderator

    Look up "ad hominem" while you are looking up the other fallacies will you.
    Oh and Mr Pudding -who thanked this post- do you also consider the moderation a disgrace?

    I have had plenmty of run ins and disagreements with PDN and other mods all of which I'm happy to point out when and where bias exists. But I don't doubt their bone fides and that they actually do their job trying their best to be fair and level handed.

    The idea that "if i cant win it is because of so much bias on your part that any other forum would reject" is preposterous.


  • Options
    #1710
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    The Quadratic Equation wrote: »
    Just as long as you don't confuse the professional theologians thoughout history and in the present who have studied the scirptures for their entire lives with said "spin doctors".

    No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
    Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1711
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No I was referencing Mariens reference to catholic use of bibles.
    Remember when owning a bible was indicative of being protestant ?
    Indeed she once made all sorts of conjectures and a big song and dance about me for using a quote from Douay–Rheims Bible.
    We can argue all night about Coverdale, Wyclif or Tyndell and King James "onlyists" so I trey to avoid sticking to any one English translation. I also have studied Latin and have a greek Interlinear translation. I have also used the Watchtower New World Translation when discussing with JW's.
    Catholics don't center in on the written Biblical word, yet they have a huge tradition of scholars to which they can refer.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement