Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
No, that is incorrect. Deuteronomy was laying down rules for what would happen in the future. The rules in Deuteronomy were laid down in the wilderness before the Israelites entered the Promised Land, and gave them instructions for how they should behave once they possessed the land and fought wars as a nation.
So much here to pull you up on but it too late to be even posting
What would happen was wars - rape doesn't come into it (except in the minds of certain posters).
No it doesn't. If a man married a woman and then divorced her, she would find it almost impossible to find another husband. Therefore some sort of compensation would be due.
Spin doctoring again. Context and time PDN. Deut. had to be written after Mosses cos he dies in it. Anyway its not like that was the only war was ever fought. As to laying down laws for the future! Eh! what use are laws for the past? cant apply law retrospectively.
Night ppl, thanks for the fish
0 -
-
Not at all, quite the opposite in fact. I recognize I do it, which is why I don't pretend that the moral systems I pick are some how objectively true.
I did not pretend that the moral system I picked is objectively true. Please show me at what point I said such a thing. Go on, I dare you.
What I actually said was that both objective morality exists along with subjective morality. And I attempted to use objective truth as a direct analogy. I never claimed that I had a monopoly on objective morality, just like I have never claimed to have an inside line to objective truth. What I have said is that objective morality and objective truth exist whether or not we acknowledge it. Even at the level of thought experiment this, I believe, is sound logic. Now if you have a problem with that then argue against what I am saying, not what you imagine or wish me to say.
Stating I have said anything more than this - which is exactly what you have done - means that you have misrepresented me.Yes this seems to be the standard excuse when such an idea is put forward. I want to be having sex with lots and lots of different women every night, but I don't because Christianity tells me it is wrong.
It's not an excuse. It a direct rebuttal to your claim that people adopt a moral system because it suits them. One reason they might adopt a particular moral system is because *Shock! Horror!* they happen to think it is true.There is a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral.
Why do you insist of inventing arguments of your own making? It like playing chess against yourself and attributing your crappy moves to somebody else.
I never stated there wasn't "a fundamental difference between what you desire and what you believe to be moral". What I actually said was that the two can clash. I'll add to that and say that desire can control reason. What you hold to be moral may change depending on the pull of your desires. The opposite is true as well.In fact part of the appeal of religions is that they give justification to the notion that giving into desire is inherently bad, a concept found almost universally through human culture.
That's rubbish. Firstly not all desires are bad and no one here has claimed otherwise. Secondly, the concept of self-denial is as much a part of certain philosophies as it is a part of certain religions.
Incidentally, not all religions are one and the same, just as not all philosophies are the same. That is why, for example, hedonism is not the same as Stoicism, and Christianity is not the same as the worship of Dionysus.The existence of objective morality is largely irrelevant...
I don't agree. Stale mate.0 -
-
-
Er, you did cite a Chapter that referred to both Jabesh Gilead and Shgiloh. So you can hardly blame me for referring to the second group rather than the first.
Well I would have expected you to actually read it before you commented.But the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were Israelites too (Judges 21:8), so this is a totally different kettle of fish to Deut 21 or Numbers 31.
Siege a city, kill the men and women, take the virgins. Seems pretty similar PDN.Yes, it sounds like a very distorted compilation of Deut 21 and Numbers 31 by someone trying to shoehorn a horrible example of human sinfulness into their atheistic agenda.
So you have run out of counter-arguments and you are just going to fall back on the old "atheist agenda" nonsense. Good stuff. And on the atheism debate thread as all, the shame of meYou'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.
Lol, oh dear you really will argue the sky is black won't you.
As I have stated many times at this point that God commanded force marriage and rape in Deuteronomy.
Judges 21 does not add support to what God commanded. God doesn't seem to be commanding anything in Judge 21.
But then that isn't why it was brought up. It was brought up to demonstrate the silliness of the assumption that in Deuteronomy what is being described is consensual marriage.
The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.
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.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!
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?
You bring a new meaning to the term "plausible interpretation"Right, then please don't keep pretending that any of this is relevant to what God commanded.
It is relevant to the possible interpretations of take women and marry them as described in Deut.
Your flimsy argument that consensual marriage was a plausible interpretation is now even more flimsy given how we see the Israelites behaved in Judges.
Tell us again how the sky is black PDN :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
And I did. It refers to two distinct incidents in very different circumstances. If you didn't want us to talk about what happened at Shiloh then you shouldn't have quoted the whole passage.Well I would have expected you to actually read it before you commented.
It was a simple misunderstanding - no need to be snarky about that when there's plenty of substantive things that we disagree on.
No, it isn't, Virgins aren't mentioned in Deuteronomy 21. And nothing about taking wives is mentioned in Numbers 21.Siege a city, kill the men and women, take the virgins. Seems pretty similar PDN.
It sounds like you're shoehorning again.
And you've never made a comment about Christians or 'you guys' (as you like to put it) being biased, have you? :rolleyes:So you have run out of counter-arguments and you are just going to fall back on the old "atheist agenda" nonsense. Good stuff. And on the atheism debate thread as all, the shame of me
Pot. Kettle, Black
So, just to clarify, you're posting at 3.30am and making sarcastic comments about the sky being black? :pac:Lol, oh dear you really will argue the sky is black won't you.
Stated, and failed to support it with any evidence. There is no reference to rape in Deuteronomy 21. If there were you would have pointed to it by now instead of dancing around every time we ask you to point to it.As I have stated many times at this point that God commanded force marriage and rape in Deuteronomy.Judges 21 does not add support to what God commanded. God doesn't seem to be commanding anything in Judge 21.
But then that isn't why it was brought up. It was brought up to demonstrate the silliness of the assumption that in Deuteronomy what is being described is consensual marriage.
The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.
So you make an assertion that God commanded rape.
Then, when challenged to point to anywhere in the Bible where God commanded rape, you point to a passage where you admit yourself that God didn't command rape. In fact, you ppoint to a passage which, like most of Judges, described what happened when people just did what was right in their own eyes.
Can we use this same line of logic in other historical arenas?
Can we claim that Barack Obama ordered American soldiers to shoot children in Afghanistan?
After all, I can present evidence of where American soldiers shot children in a different war while not obeying any orders. So, in the world of Wicknightian logic and Humpty Dumpty language, that proves the silliness of any claim that Barack Obama did not indeed order them to shoot children.
Keep this up and repeat it enough times, and maybe someone will end up believing that the sky is black at 3.30am.
Wow! Where did the goal posts just go? :eek:The Israelites did not bother with the issue of consent of the women. Such a concept was alien to them. There is therefore no reason to suppose they bothered with it when they were following God's orders either.
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.
Can you please link to where I made that argument?
My argument all along has been that there is no record in the Bible of God commanding the Israelites to rape anyone, and that therefore your assertion is flat out wrong.
Why on earth would I argue that the Israelites (being sinful human beings) would never do anything nasty?
So please either link to where I made such an argument or withdraw that claim as untrue.
Yes, because how soldiers behave when they are expressly disobeying orders makes it a flimsy argument that they might have behaved differently when they were obeying orders. :rolleyes:Your flimsy argument that consensual marriage was a plausible interpretation is now even more flimsy given how we see the Israelites behaved in Judges.0 -
Spin doctoring again. Context and time PDN. Deut. had to be written after Mosses cos he dies in it. Anyway its not like that was the only war was ever fought. As to laying down laws for the future! Eh! what use are laws for the past? cant apply law retrospectively.
Night ppl, thanks for the fish
Deuteronomy's final edit was certainly after Moses' death, but the events it is describing (including the deutero-nomos - literally second giving of the law) occurred during Moses' lifetime.
Now, if you want to argue that Deuteronomy was re-edited etc. to fit with later events then that is going to create a wonderful piece of circular logic. We are going to ask the Christians in this forum to reject the Bible as immoral, on the basis that, if you already accept the atheist rejection of the Bible as an accurate record, it might refer to rape if you read between the lines enough.
Do you see the problem with that line of reasoning?0 -
-
And I did. It refers to two distinct incidents in very different circumstances. If you didn't want us to talk about what happened at Shiloh then you shouldn't have quoted the whole passage.
It was a simple misunderstanding - no need to be snarky about that when there's plenty of substantive things that we disagree on.
You might want to remember that the next time you make a comment like this
You are spouting absolute drivel.
that then turns out to be based on your misunderstanding. :rolleyes:No, it isn't, Virgins aren't mentioned in Deuteronomy 21. And nothing about taking wives is mentioned in Numbers 21.
Both passages describe how the Israelites carried out war. They aren't exactly the same passage, otherwise I would have said look at Deuteronomy 21 and then for kicks look at Deuteronomy 21 again.It sounds like you're shoehorning again.
It sounds like you have run out of a coherent response and are falling back on some rather childish arguing methods.And you've never made a comment about Christians or 'you guys' (as you like to put it) being biased, have you? :rolleyes:
Pot. Kettle, Black
Lots of times. I still continue to actually have arguments though. I response are not just a long rant about atheist agenda with no substantial counter arguments or rebutals to the points being made.
Case in point ...So, just to clarify, you're posting at 3.30am and making sarcastic comments about the sky being black? :pac:Stated, and failed to support it with any evidence. There is no reference to rape in Deuteronomy 21. If there were you would have pointed to it by now instead of dancing around every time we ask you to point to it.
Wow, we are really going to do this again. :rolleyes:
Deut 21 describes taking wives from prisoners of war. There is no mention either way of whether the wives had a choice in this matter. I and a lot of others concluded that they didn't since prisoners of war tend not to be given that much choice in the matter.
You said that you preferred the other interpretation, that the Israelites would have asked the women if they wished to be married out not, based on other passages not Deut 21 (which makes this annoyance that I'm referencing other passages in the Bible all the more silly and childish)
Judges 21 contradicts this interpretation. The best counter argument you seem to be able to come up with is that Judges 21 was not a commandment from God, though you seem to be struggling to explain how this is relevant to explaining actions by the Israelites.Can we claim that Barack Obama ordered American soldiers to shoot children in Afghanistan?
Yes if an American soldier shoots a child while working under the assumption that this is just a normal Obama ordered operation like all the others.
As I pointed out about six times now taking of wives from captive prisoners is described as being sanctioned by God. You and I both agree that.
If you have twenty missions ordered by Obama that ended up with dead children, and then on one missions that you don't know was ordered by Obama but the soldiers were doing what they had done before and killed children, it is safe to assume that in the other 20 missions the soldiers also killed the children.
You know you are never going to find a passage in the Bible that explicately says that these soldiers raped these women. This is because, as Judges 21 demonstrated, they didn't think of forced marriage as rape. They also didn't think of consent as necessary for marrying prisoners of war.Wow! Where did the goal posts just go? :eek:
Can you please link to where I made that argument?
You may have missed it but I already did.My argument all along has been that there is no record in the Bible of God commanding the Israelites to rape anyone, and that therefore your assertion is flat out wrong.
Why on earth would I argue that the Israelites (being sinful human beings) would never do anything nasty?
Slit throat seems to be the argument. Hey man, I agree with you it is a stupid argumentYes, because how soldiers behave when they are expressly disobeying orders makes it a flimsy argument that they might have behaved differently when they were obeying orders. :rolleyes:
Point out the order that says that the Israelites should get the permission of the women slave before they marry them.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement