Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

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?

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

Well everything really, it means if she was not free to go she had a choice of a forced marriage or servitude.

Now some of those marriages may have ended up happy ever after but some may not, just as some who choose sevitude may have ended up with benign masters and some may have ended up with Simon Legree .

ISAW

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 ?

Already answered. I could mean indentured servitude. Which could later mean marriage is an option. the virgin bit was answered earlier by me.
Here is a tip for you
Scroll up to the "search boards.ie " at the top of the page and click on the "advanced Search" link

Then for say in the last month you can enter SAmuel 31 and at the bottom select oldest forst and change the calendar of the start date to say Novermber 1. If you search under ISAW as the user you will find my post.

Here is some of the things it picked up. Numbers 31 in forum "christianity" Starting Novermber 1 "oldest first" option
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75757421&postcount=722
from thios thread which shows Zombrex saying

You appreciate that one of those outcomes is God condoning rape of prisoners of war, correct?

And lets be honest, that is the more likely interpretation, agreed

i.e. rape is the more likely interpretation. Of course he has dropped that claim by now without saying so.
Wonderfull things search engines aren't they?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Well everything really, it means if she was not free to go she had a choice of a forced marriage or servitude.

Yes, she had a choice. That's what I've been saying all along. So it can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as rape.

Now some of those marriages may have ended up happy ever after but some may not, just as some who choose sevitude may have ended up with benign masters and some may have ended up with Simon Legree .

I don't know how old you are, but I think you'll find that would be true of all marriages. Some live happily ever after, and others don't - but that hardly makes them rape.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Already answered. I could mean indentured servitude. Which could later mean marriage is an option. tyhe virgin bit was answered earlier by me.

Surprising you are using a few '' could mean'' in there ISAW , it also ''could mean'' a forced marriage and sex also .

Zombrex

Judges 21 makes a mockery of the idea that women in those times consented to these forced marriages.

Unless someone wants to argue that the 400 virgins spared after Jabesh-Gilead was destroyed all consented to marriage with the Benjamites or that after there wasn't enough women for all the Benjamites they hide in the vines and grabbed the first women they could find for their wives was also a consensual act.

One thing you won't find anywhere in the Judges 21 is the explicate term rape. Another thing you won't find anywhere is even a hint that the woman's views were of any consideration. The only people who's complaints are entertained are the brothers and fathers, and they are told to not object.

The whole chapter in its disgusting glory.

Judges 21
1 The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite.”
2 The people went to Bethel,[a] where they sat before God until evening, raising their voices and weeping bitterly. 3 “LORD, God of Israel,” they cried, “why has this happened to Israel? Why should one tribe be missing from Israel today?”

4 Early the next day the people built an altar and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings.

5 Then the Israelites asked, “Who from all the tribes of Israel has failed to assemble before the LORD?” For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah was to be put to death.

6 Now the Israelites grieved for the tribe of Benjamin, their fellow Israelites. “Today one tribe is cut off from Israel,” they said. 7 “How can we provide wives for those who are left, since we have taken an oath by the LORD not to give them any of our daughters in marriage?” 8 Then they asked, “Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah?” They discovered that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people of Jabesh Gilead were there.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance.

25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

That is missing the point. The question is a matter of why people accept Christianity in the first place, given that this is the atheist debate thread.

Because taking all things into consideration, most Christians have weighed up the details regarding Jesus, the Apostles, the claims in the Gospel, and the early church and made a personal determination/decision on the balance of probability, that the beliefs of Christianity are true. In essence the opposite decision to the one you have chosen concerning belief in the message of the Gospel. The moment irrefutable proof is produced proving beyond all reasonable doubt the Gospel claims are untrue, I will cease being Christian, but after 40 years, I have yet to see even a shred of decent proof against them.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Surprising you are using a few '' could mean'' in there ISAW , it also ''could mean'' a forced marriage and sex also .

Well no it couldn't because you have been shown other passages wher they hasd to respect their wives. Marriage requires consent.

It could not mean "sex also" since sex outside marriage was also against the rules.

But the main issue ( PDN hads pointed this out) is thatit isn't for those not making the claim to prove the negative. the burden is clearly on the "God commanded rape" people to show where this is. Furious backpeddling with "well it is my opinion and that is equal to your opinion" ( it isn't) and hopping off into other issues ( murder etc.) are not dealing with supporting this claim.

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Because taking all things into consideration, most Christians have weighed up the details regarding Jesus, the Apostles, the claims in the Gospel, and the early church and made a personal determination/decision on the balance of probabilty, that the beliefs of Christianity are true. In essence the opposite decision to the one you have chosen concerning belief in the message of the Gospel.

But you present logic that could be applied to any religion. When you are pressed on this the response is that the Gospels make sense to you from a moral point of view (they are a "perfect message", to use your words)

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Judges 21 makes a mockery of the idea that women in those times consented to these forced marriages.

Unless someone wants to argue that the 400 virgins spared after Jabesh-Gilead was destroyed all consented to marriage with the Benjamites or that after there wasn't enough women for all the Benjamites they hide in the vines and grabbed the first women they could find for their wives was also a consensual act.

One thing you won't find anywhere in the Judges 21 is the explicate term rape. Another thing you won't find anywhere is even a hint that the woman's views were of any consideration. The only people who's complaints are entertained are the brothers and fathers, and they are told to not object.

The whole chapter in its disgusting glory.

Judges 21
1 The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite.”
2 The people went to Bethel,[a] where they sat before God until evening, raising their voices and weeping bitterly. 3 “LORD, God of Israel,” they cried, “why has this happened to Israel? Why should one tribe be missing from Israel today?”

4 Early the next day the people built an altar and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings.

5 Then the Israelites asked, “Who from all the tribes of Israel has failed to assemble before the LORD?” For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah was to be put to death.

6 Now the Israelites grieved for the tribe of Benjamin, their fellow Israelites. “Today one tribe is cut off from Israel,” they said. 7 “How can we provide wives for those who are left, since we have taken an oath by the LORD not to give them any of our daughters in marriage?” 8 Then they asked, “Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah?” They discovered that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people of Jabesh Gilead were there.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance.

25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

So you've given up trying to shoehorn rape into Deuteronomy 21, and now you're trying to raise a different passage altogether.

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.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Yes, she had a choice. That's what I've been saying all along. So it can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as rape.


I don't know how old you are, but I think you'll find that would be true of all marriages. Some live happily ever after, and others don't - but that hardly makes them rape.

How you can equate a marriage to escape servitude as an exercise in free choice is really stretching it PDN.

It is not true of all marriages , then outcomes you describe may be the result of some marriages but they are entered into freely and that is the point at issue. And lets not go down the arranged/kidnapped/bought road again. We are talking about what is accepted by Christianity.

The Quadratic Equation

Zombrex wrote: »

But you present logic that could be applied to any religion. When you are pressed on this the response is that the Gospels make sense to you from a moral point of view (they are a "perfect message", to use your words)

I didn't find it pressing, just a case of I don't go in for long explanatory posts. Apologies if my answers are too brief or shallow, but I don't see much point going into too much detail on a forum, as entire tomes have been written on the subject by writers much better than I.

I have examined other religions, they do not stand up for me. Islam, Buddhism, etc. all have their glaring errors/flaws when examined closely, they have some truth to be sure, but nothing close to Christianity.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Judges 21 makes a mockery of the idea that women in those times consented to these forced marriages.

Unless someone wants to argue that the 400 virgins spared after Jabesh-Gilead was destroyed all consented to marriage with the Benjamites or that after there wasn't enough women for all the Benjamites they hide in the vines and grabbed the first women they could find for their wives was also a consensual act.

One thing you won't find anywhere in the Judges 21 is the explicate term rape. Another thing you won't find anywhere is even a hint that the woman's views were of any consideration. The only people who's complaints are entertained are the brothers and fathers, and they are told to not object.

Judges 21
1 The men of Israel had taken an oath at Mizpah: “Not one of us will give his daughter in marriage to a Benjamite.”
2 The people went to Bethel,[a] where they sat before God until evening, raising their voices and weeping bitterly. 3 “LORD, God of Israel,” they cried, “why has this happened to Israel? Why should one tribe be missing from Israel today?”

4 Early the next day the people built an altar and presented burnt offerings and fellowship offerings.

5 Then the Israelites asked, “Who from all the tribes of Israel has failed to assemble before the LORD?” For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah was to be put to death.

6 Now the Israelites grieved for the tribe of Benjamin, their fellow Israelites. “Today one tribe is cut off from Israel,” they said. 7 “How can we provide wives for those who are left, since we have taken an oath by the LORD not to give them any of our daughters in marriage?” 8 Then they asked, “Which one of the tribes of Israel failed to assemble before the LORD at Mizpah?” They discovered that no one from Jabesh Gilead had come to the camp for the assembly. 9 For when they counted the people, they found that none of the people of Jabesh Gilead were there.

10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

13 Then the whole assembly sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites at the rock of Rimmon. 14 So the Benjamites returned at that time and were given the women of Jabesh Gilead who had been spared. But there were not enough for all of them.

15 The people grieved for Benjamin, because the LORD had made a gap in the tribes of Israel. 16 And the elders of the assembly said, “With the women of Benjamin destroyed, how shall we provide wives for the men who are left? 17 The Benjamite survivors must have heirs,” they said, “so that a tribe of Israel will not be wiped out. 18 We can’t give them our daughters as wives, since we Israelites have taken this oath: ‘Cursed be anyone who gives a wife to a Benjamite.’ 19 But look, there is the annual festival of the LORD in Shiloh, which lies north of Bethel, east of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.”

20 So they instructed the Benjamites, saying, “Go and hide in the vineyards 21 and watch. When the young women of Shiloh come out to join in the dancing, rush from the vineyards and each of you seize one of them to be your wife. Then return to the land of Benjamin. 22 When their fathers or brothers complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Do us the favor of helping them, because we did not get wives for them during the war. You will not be guilty of breaking your oath because you did not give your daughters to them.’”

23 So that is what the Benjamites did. While the young women were dancing, each man caught one and carried her off to be his wife. Then they returned to their inheritance and rebuilt the towns and settled in them.

24 At that time the Israelites left that place and went home to their tribes and clans, each to his own inheritance.

25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

Another think you wont find is "God commanded this"
Her it is again:

10 So the assembly sent

Who sent? Did God send them?
also

25 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

They were relativists! Just like you. See what happens?
Judges17:
5 Now this man Micah had a shrine, and he made an ephod and some household gods and installed one of his sons as his priest. 6 In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as they saw fit.

Does this mean God commanded idolatry too as well as rape?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Well no it couldn't because you have been shown other passages wher they hasd to respect their wives. Marriage requires consent.

It could not mean "sex also" since sex outside marriage was also against the rules.

But the main issue ( PDN hads pointed this out) is thatit isn't for those not making the claim to prove the negative. the burden is clearly on the "God commanded rape" people to show where this is. Furious backpeddling with "well it is my opinion and that is equal to your opinion" ( it isn't) and hopping off into other issues ( murder etc.) are not dealing with supporting this claim.

Sorry ISAW , with all due respect, this is just red-herring stuff, we are not in a court of law here. We are are talking about adults reading a book and taking an interpretation from it. Now you are introducing could have and might have into it, and good luck to you, but it does mean you are speculating , so what is sauce for the goose etc.

And on the issue of murder, I really do wish people would stop picking up every word , my reading there was it was just used as an example and not dodging any issue.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

But you present logic that could be applied to any religion. When you are pressed on this the response is that the Gospels make sense to you from a moral point of view (they are a "perfect message", to use your words)

Sorry christianity does not use a separate "logic" different from the absolute and agreed to "logic" that everyone who has reason accepts!

If you are saying "the same argument can be applied to all religions in general" well thatis for you to prove. The particular case is being made here. One can move from the general to the particular but not vice versa. If you want to prove it true for all religions suit yourself. The point is that the logic for Christianity is held to be consistent. There is no requirement to try to prove it for all religions.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So you've given up trying to shoehorn rape into Deuteronomy 21, and now you're trying to raise a different passage altogether.

Er, no.

Deuteronomy 21 details to my mind forced marriage and rape. The argument against that interpretation is how do we know these women prisoners of war didn't consent to the marriages, after all it doesn't say anywhere that they didn't consent.

Well if you look at Judges 21 which details these traditions on handling female prisoners of war for marriage there is clearly no consent. These women are taken and all given to the Benjamites, and when they run out of women (which means they were all given over) the men simply grabbed other women out of the fields.

And by the way you yourself used different passages in the Bible to justify your interpretation of Deut 21 as consensual marriage, so it is a bit silly to start giving out that other passages come into it. :rolleyes:

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.

No, it doesn't do that. The chapter ends by stressing that the Israelites were without a King. God is very much present, in fact he was commanding the battle that lead to the destruction of the Benjamites in just the previous passage.

PDN wrote: »

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

Oh pull the other one PDN. These passages deal with the reality of the treatment of prisoners of war and the forced marriages that are part of that treatment. The women captured during war are not treated with the respect of being asked to consent to marriage (which you admitted was a possible interpretation of the passages in Deut).

This is exactly what you claimed we didn't know from the passages in Deut, we didn't know how woman captured by the Israelites would be treated so we couldn't infer that they were forced into marriage.

Well guess what, now we do know.

So much for the honest debate you claimed you were willing to have. :rolleyes:

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Well no it couldn't because you have been shown other passages wher they hasd to respect their wives. Marriage requires consent.

It could not mean "sex also" since sex outside marriage was also against the rules.

But the main issue ( PDN hads pointed this out) is thatit isn't for those not making the claim to prove the negative. the burden is clearly on the "God commanded rape" people to show where this is. Furious backpeddling with "well it is my opinion and that is equal to your opinion" ( it isn't) and hopping off into other issues ( murder etc.) are not dealing with supporting this claim.

Just a further point here - you say '' marriage requires consent'' and I wholeheartly agree with you. And this brings us right back to the issue of consent.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Judges 21 makes a mockery of the idea that women in those times consented to these forced marriages.

When a tardis is invented perhaps we will join Dr. Who on his trek across time and place and become witnesses - until then, we at least acknowledge the commonly understood idea that the bible contains many types of literature, not least som hyperbole and also it was written to a people at a point in time for a purpose. It's not the daily mail.

Unless someone wants to argue that the 400 virgins spared after Jabesh-Gilead was destroyed all consented to marriage with the Benjamites or that after there wasn't enough women for all the Benjamites they hide in the vines and grabbed the first women they could find for their wives was also a consensual act.

God did not command any of this, it's the behaviour of his creatures - unfortunately his creatures are still not quite getting it these days either, forced marraiges and polygamy aren't exactly practiced in Christian society and you are on the Christian forum.

One thing you won't find anywhere in the Judges 21 is the explicate term rape.

Gee, finally!

Nor will you find God commanding it. In fact, you will find God commanding what seems to be a pretty rebellious people in terms of what is good that they can take in, at a point in time when they are more than happy to submit to their own natural whims......you Zombrex read things in isolation without context and you are just reading yourself into the text instead of letting the text speak for itself.... [/quote]

The whole chapter in its disgusting glory.

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.



When you start putting things in context, and speak of the Christian God, perhaps you will make more sense, rather than shouting about a God that Christians don't know, but you imagine based on your understanding of things recorded - perhaps you could get to know him first, before being so petulant. Context, time, place, etc. etc. very important.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If you are saying "the same argument can be applied to all religions in general" well thatis for you to prove. The particular case is being made here. One can move from the general to the particular but not vice versa. If you want to prove it true for all religions suit yourself. The point is that the logic for Christianity is held to be consistent. There is no requirement to try to prove it for all religions.

What are you talking about?

If the justification for belief in Christianity when applied to any other religion requires you believe that religion too, then clearly this is not the reason one picks Christianity.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

How you can equate a marriage to escape servitude as an exercise in free choice is really stretching it PDN.

Of course it is an exercise in free choice. Just as much as marrying a rich person to escape from poverty is a free choice. Or as when a Russian woman marries an Irish guy to get a visa is a choice. Or as when an Indian girl marries her parents' chosen husband rather than risking ostracism from her community is a choice. Or as when a vacuous blonde marries a footballer in order to be a WAG is a choice.

For most of history people have got married for various reasons - escaping bad situations, sealing alliances, guaranteeing inheritances etc. It might not be romantic, but to call it rape would be the real stretch.

It is not true of all marriages , then outcomes you describe may be the result of some marriages but they are entered into freely and that is the point at issue.

It is true of all marriages that some live happily ever after and some don't. If you didn't want that obvious fact pointed out then why raise the issue?

And lets not go down the arranged/kidnapped/bought road again. We are talking about what is accepted by Christianity.

No, we're not. We're talking about what we think happened with the Israelites thirteen centuries before Christianity came into existence.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

God did not command any of this, it's the behaviour of his creatures - unfortunately his creatures are still not quite getting it these days either, forced marraiges and polygamy aren't exactly practiced in Christian society and you are on the Christian forum.

God commanded it in Deuteronomy 21. This is a general commandment on the treatment of prisoners of war.

Judges 21 is a detail of that commandment in practice.

lmaopml wrote: »

When you start putting things in context, and speak of the Christian God, perhaps you will make more sense, rather than shouting about a God that Christians don't know, but you imagine based on your understanding of things recorded - perhaps you could get to know him first, before being so petulant. Context, time, place, etc. etc. very important.

Yes yes Imaopml, the real Christian God is nice and fluffy and made of rainbows and tastes of ice cream and when we think of him we get a warm fuzzy feeling in our tummies, he wouldn't possibly do anything as horrid as sanction forced marriage.

Perhaps when you are finished that childish nonsense you want to come join the grown ups discussing interpretations of the Old Testament?

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Perhaps when you are finished that childish nonsense you want to come join the grown ups discussing interpretations of the Old Testament?

I didn't realise I was in the company of greatness..lol..

God is not fluffy, and neither do Christians learn or understand God in 'fluffy' terms, or indeed like you do Zombrex, in black and white according to Zombrex terms. Christians also believe that Heaven and Hell are a reality - now go figure! It's entirely up to you...your life, your choice, your rhymes and reasons...that we are becoming familiar with over here :P

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I didn't realise I was in the company of greatness..lol..

God is not fluffy, and neither do Christians learn or understand God in 'fluffy' terms, or indeed like you do Zombrex, in black and white according to Zombrex terms. Christians also believe that Heaven and Hell are a reality - now go figure! It's entirely up to you...your life, your choice, your rhymes and reasons...that we are becoming familiar with over here :P

I always know that the debate on the Christianity forum is going well when the counter arguments start drying up to be replaced by dire warnings that if I don't change my ways I'm going straight to hell. :pac:

philologos

Judges is written in a certain style. It has to do with a period of time when the Israelites had fallen away from the observance of God. In 1 Samuel and in other texts this pattern continues back and forward. The phrase at the end of Judges, is repeated in 1 Samuel for describing the relationship of the people with their God. I.E The highs and lows of the nation of Israel.

The beginning of 1 Samuel uses similar language. "The word of the LORD was rare" (1 Samuel 3:1) in those days. It's scattered right across Judges as well. Other texts such as Isaiah 53:6 refer to going each their own way in the negative. Reflecting ones ego rather than reflecting the glory of God is seen as a negative.

It seems to be that PDN's take on it is bang on.

I'm delighted that we got the discussion to progress even a little bit . I think it must have been the realisation that the Bible is vocally critical of rape that caused this.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, no.

Deuteronomy 21 details to my mind forced marriage and rape. The argument against that interpretation is how do we know these women prisoners of war didn't consent to the marriages, after all it doesn't say anywhere that they didn't consent.

Well if you look at Judges 21 which details these traditions on handling female prisoners of war for marriage there is clearly no consent.

You are spouting absolute drivel.

Deuteronomy 21 was about how the Israelites were to behave when they went to war and conquered a foreign city.
a) They were to put the men to the sword.
b) They were to take the women and children as servants or slaves.
c) They could marry a captive woman after certain humane requirements were met, including giving her time to mourn her parents.
d) The actions were commanded by God through Moses.

Now let's look at Shiloh
a) It was not a foreign city.
b) The inhabitants were Israelites.
c) No-one was put to the sword
d) No-one was taken to be servants or slaves.
e) No mention of the humane requirements of Deut 21
f) No mention of that any such actions were commanded by God, in fact the opposite is clearly implied.

To try to claim that Judges 21 somehow represents an application of the commands of Deuteronomy 21 is one of the most retarded arguments I have ever had the misfortune to read.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

I always know that the debate on the Christianity forum is going well when the counter arguments start drying up to be replaced by dire warnings that if I don't change my ways I'm going straight to hell. :pac:

So long as you acknowledge it's not fluffy, then perhaps you are beginning (one baby step at a time ) to learn the idea of putting things in context properly. It's not that difficult - but it can be if you believe yourself to already know everything I suppose, and project that supreme knowledge willy nilly. :pac:

:P

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Of course it is an exercise in free choice. Just as much as marrying a rich person to escape from poverty is a free choice. Or as when a Russian woman marries an Irish guy to get a visa is a choice. Or as when an Indian girl marries her parents' chosen husband rather than risking ostracism from her community is a choice. Or as when a vacuous blonde marries a footballer in order to be a WAG is a choice.

For most of history people have got married for various reasons - escaping bad situations, sealing alliances, guaranteeing inheritances etc. It might not be romantic, but to call it rape would be the real stretch.


It is true of all marriages that some live happily ever after and some don't. If you didn't want that obvious fact pointed out then why raise the issue?


No, we're not. We're talking about what we think happened with the Israelites thirteen centuries before Christianity came into existence.

You really are ducking and diving PDN, none, I repeat none of those examples you give here, and continue to bring up in any way equate to the passage we are discussing.

In all those examples you insist on using ,the girl has the choice to walk away, the captive girls dont- emphasise on the words captive .

A more apt comparision would be the faith of The Trojan Women, how do you think Andromache felt being dragged off by Neoptolemus right after he threw her son from the walls of Troy.

AS a separate issue can you please drop the smart asides and just engage with the posts or if you wish - just ignore them and we can leave it at that.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Judges is written in a certain style. It has to do with a period of time when the Israelites had fallen away from the observance of God.

Correct. The reason the Benjemites were killed was because they had allowed a rape to take place in their towns and had refused to do anything about it.

The reason Jabesh Gilead was attacked (which resulted in the 400 virgins) was because they had failed to turn up at the alter.

The actions that resulted in the forced marriage of these women was a result of sanctions against those who had started to ignore God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You are spouting absolute drivel.

Deuteronomy 21 was about how the Israelites were to behave when they went to war and conquered a foreign city.
a) They were to put the men to the sword.
b) They were to take the women and children as servants or slaves.
c) They could marry a captive woman after certain humane requirements were met, including giving her time to mourn her parents.
d) The actions were commanded by God through Moses.

Now let's look at Shiloh
a) It was not a foreign city.
b) The inhabitants were Israelites.
c) No-one was put to the sword
d) No-one was taken to be servants or slaves.
e) No mention of the humane requirements of Deut 21
f) No mention of that any such actions were commanded by God, in fact the opposite is clearly implied.

To try to claim that Judges 21 somehow represents an application of the commands of Deuteronomy 21 is one of the most retarded arguments I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Groan.:rolleyes:

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

Judges 21
10 So the assembly sent twelve thousand fighting men with instructions to go to Jabesh Gilead and put to the sword those living there, including the women and children. 11 “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin.” 12 They found among the people living in Jabesh Gilead four hundred young women who had never slept with a man, and they took them to the camp at Shiloh in Canaan.

So what did they do, they killed the men and every woman not a virgin, and then they took the virgins back and gave them as wives.

Sound familiar?

Numbers 31
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the LORD in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Deut 20
13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

I don't care if God did or didn't order this particular act of rape and pillage. The point is that this was business as usual for the Israelites, whether it was under their own command or under God's.

The idea that if God had commanded it the women would have been treated differently is utterly ridiculous. This is a clear description of how women in these wars were treated.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

You really are ducking and diving PDN, none, I repeat none of those examples you give here, and continue to bring up in any way equate to the passage we are discussing.

I'm hardly ducking and diving. I'm using clear-headed logic.

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

In all those examples you insist on using ,the girl has the choice to walk away, the captive girls dont- emphasise on the words captive .

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

A more apt comparision would be the faith of The Trojan Women, how do you think Andromache felt being dragged off by Neoptolemus right after he threw her son from the walls of Troy.

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

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

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

AS a separate issue can you please drop the smart asides and just engage with the posts or if you wish - just ignore them and we can leave it at that.

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

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry ISAW , with all due respect, this is just red-herring stuff,

How so?

we are not in a court of law here.

so what?

We are are talking about adults reading a book and taking an interpretation from it.

Yes a reasonable valid and reliable one.

Now you are introducing could have and might have into it, and good luck to you, but it does mean you are speculating , so what is sauce for the goose etc.

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

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

And on the issue of murder, I really do wish people would stop picking up every word , my reading there was it was just used as an example and not dodging any issue.

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