[Spacedog]

If people believe in it, is Scientology or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Robblegobble* as real as the Christian God?

*The Robblegobble is the entity that made God, The argument for it's existence is the same as the the universe must have been created by 'something'. The fact that God doesn't believe in a Robblegobble (1st commandment) makes God an atheist!

[Soul Winner]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Do you believe a husband can rape his wife? If you do do you believe that the Israelites had this concept?

Yes I believe a husband can rape his wife. Do I believe he should rape his wife? Only if his wife consents to it. But then it wouldn't be rape would it? I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to have sex, and therefore rape is always always always going to be wrong in my book for any man or woman to do, even if it was legalized in every country in the world tomorrow. It is objectively wrong, which means it is wrong independent of what our collective moral code eventually evolves or devolves into.

(btw you left out the bit about the woman raped in a town ...)

If I did then it wasn't intentional.

[tommy2bad]

Aren't you glad that William Wilberforce argued that God said the North Atlantic slave trade was wrong? Aren't you glad that Martin Luther King argued that God said racial segregation was unChristian?

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

[Soul Winner]

Originally Posted by tommy2bad

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good? What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not? Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.

Heading out now but will re-replay in a few hours.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by tommy2bad

After near 2000 years they coped on !
Of course you'll argue that it was always wrong, no wait actually you argue that it became wrong when god said or inspired or revealed that it was wrong and god gets to decide when and where and if anything is wrong. Just because we don't like it doesn't make it wrong as neither dose us liking it make it right.
Yes ?

No, it didn't take them 2000 years to cop on. There were voices from the very beginning of the Christian Church that spoke out against slavery, on the basis of the revelation of God given by Jesus Christ and expounded by Paul. Sometimes those voices prevailed, and sometimes they were silenced by the wealthy and powerful who benefited most from slavery.

Incidentally, there are still cases where some forms of slavery were, in my opinion, morally acceptable. For example, indentured servitude by which Irish immigrants to America (including some of Martin Luther King's ancestors) sold themselves as temporary slaves for seven years in order to pay their passage to the new world. Based on the economic circumstances of the time, such an arrangement does not seem morally repugnant.

Similarly I can envisage certain wartime circumstances where POWs might be compelled to work for their captors in a way that is morally justifiable.

[tommy2bad]

Originally Posted by Soul Winner

If there is no God and therefore no moral law giver then how do we decide that something is evil or wrong or even good? What qualifies our judgement on whether something is evil or not? Don't reply with the same old BS that we don't need a God to tell us what good and evil is. Explain to me the grounds upon which we adjudge something to be objectively wrong i.e. something that is wrong even if human beings did not exist.

Heading out now but will re-replay in a few hours.

Actually I'm not saying theirs no God. Thats a different point altogether.
What I'm trying to do is find out if God is guilty.
But the point about something being wrong if humans didn't exist
I guess, nothing, their is no apple core on the ground then.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by Soul Winner

Yes I believe a husband can rape his wife. Do I believe he should rape his wife? Only if his wife consents to it. But then it wouldn't be rape would it? I don't believe anyone should ever be forced to have sex, and therefore rape is always always always going to be wrong in my book for any man or woman to do, even if it was legalized in every country in the world tomorrow. It is objectively wrong, which means it is wrong independent of what our collective moral code eventually evolves or devolves into.

Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Ok, so in the passages in the Old Testament that describe forced marriage (or appear to Zombrex to describe forced marriage) condoned by God do you believe that these instructions implied that forced sexual intercourse was also permissible between the husband and his new bride?

FYP

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

FYP

Er, we have been over this. You objected to me assuming they were raped, neither of us doubted that these women (or at the very least some of them) were forced into marriage. You seemed to merely want me to consider that after their civilisation had been completely wiped out some of these women might actually wish to come with the Israelites rather than face starvation or slavery at the hands of bandits or any other grizzly fate. And I'm more than happy to accept that some of them might have wanted that, but we both agreed that whether they wanted to go with the Israelites or not was of no concern to the Israelites, their motivation was not to provide a better life for those who wished to leave with them, they were taking them as wives whether they wanted to or not, which is by definition forced marriage.

Are you changing your position?

[Sonics2k]

Originally Posted by PDN

FYP

Actually there was no reason to fix his post, he gave a completely accurate view point.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Er, we have been over this. You objected to me assuming they were raped, neither of us doubted that these women (or at the very least some of them) were forced into marriage.

That is not true, I see no evidence of anyone being forced into marriage.

Are you changing your position?

No, because I never held the position you attributed to me.

I have no doubt that these women were forced to go with the Israelites as slaves. You have shown no evidence to support your opinion that they were forced into marriage.

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Sonics2k

Actually there was no reason to fix his post, he gave a completely accurate view point.

He gave a very subjective viewpoint, having failed to demonstrate why his interpretation is better than the alternative (other than because he wants it to be so).

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

That is not true, I see no evidence of anyone being forced into marriage.

Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.

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.

Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?

[PDN]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.

Really? I think it's exactly as if the last two days have happened. You've asserted that you think one interpretation is true rather than another, and I've disagreed, saying I lean towards the other interpretation.

I fail to see why there should be any confusion about that.

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.

Do you believe that the women covered by this law were given the option of whether or not to marry the soldier, and if they refused then the soldier may not take the beautiful woman as his wife?

Given the evidence we've discussed, I would lean towards the interpretation that they did have the option to refuse marriage.

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't offered anything convincing.

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by PDN

Given the evidence we've discussed, I would lean towards the interpretation that they did have the option to refuse marriage.

Sorry what evidence was that? You presented evidence of woman wanting to marry the soldiers, but I don't remember evidence of women refusing to and this being respect. Apologies if I missed that.

Originally Posted by PDN

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, but you haven't offered anything convincing.

Would the fact that they were captured prisoners of war who had no choice in anything else that was happening to them not be a convincing argument that when a passage authorizing a soldier to take a captured woman as his wife she had no choice in the matter?

Given that at no point in any of what is happening to her is it described that she has a choice in the matter, do you have any reason to suppose she had a choice in this?

Now again if there is evidence of this happening that I've missed I'm happy to accept that choice was involved.