Zombrex wrote: » If God appeared before you and said go rape someone saying Well I learnt in Sunday school that God doesn't want me to rape people would probably mean very little to the all powerful creator of the universe.
"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
philologos wrote: » It's not "they would judge God wouldn't do that". Biblically He wouldn't, it's inconsistent with Christianity.
If you're going to discuss Christianity, then we're going to need to pluck out the Bible to focus on the logic we need to work within. If you're not up for that and want to talk about a hypothetical god-concept that contradicts Christianity, that's a different discussion as far as I can see it and not one that many Christians will be interested in engaging with.....
Zombrex wrote: » Wow, it is like the last two days never happened.Deuteronomy 2110 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?
recedite wrote: » The Bible and consistency mentioned in the same sentence
Zombrex has quoted extensively from the Bible already, but each time the response can be summarised as "Yeah, but that bit doesn't count" or "its out of context" or "that bit has been superseded by this bit"
The question for you Christians is this; Do you, or do you not, believe that Deuteronomy 21 is the word of God?
Poring over the bible and plucking out passages which completely contradict each other, and/or fall far short of modern standards of morality, is much too tiresome for most atheists. Zombrex has the patience of a saint.
Newsite wrote: » Except, that as pointed out, we would know that it wasn't God, because it would be wholly inconsistent.
lmaopml wrote: » You have been asked before, to point out where exactly God commanded 'rape' - you have not done so...but you base your arguement on the idea that he has!!!
lmaopml wrote: » Your approach is in my opinion lazy Zombrex
Zombrex wrote: » Whether or not God has commanded Christians to rape people is not important to the argument and what is being asked. If you think it is you aren't reading the posts properly. The question is not did God order anyone to rape anyone. The question is whether God is the source of all morality so that if he did order this it would be just and right and you would follow it.
Zombrex: I'm going to argue for calming things down on this thread. I want you to stop and clarify what you are arguing, then if we could start afresh based on what clarifications you make that'd be great. 1) God commands rape in the Bible - If this is your argument, I think everyone is reasonable in expecting you to go systematically through what passages you happen to think condone rape. 2) If God commanded someone to rape, then it would be moral to rape - as a hypothetical - If this is what you are arguing, it's flawed. The Christian position is that Jesus Christ forms the final revelation, and that all prophesy and all further teaching must be consistent with the revelation that He gave us (see Hebrews 1:1-2:4). Any teaching which contradicts what has already gone can't be considered as Christian. So if 1 is false, and you attempt to argue 2 this contradicts the character of God that has already been revealed and as a result cannot be considered as Christianity. You can't argue both. Is this a fair proposal to you or are you going to suggest alternative arguments to the two I have listed? If so, I want you to explain clearly as to what that argument is.
"Rape" is being used as an example not because it is in the Old Testament (I believe it is but it is not central to the question for you to think it is) but because rape is universally (in the Western world at least) considered immoral and unjustifiable no matter what the circumstances.
Well frankly Imaopml I'm bothering to read your posts properly and you aren't bothering to read mine (perhaps on purpose, perhaps out of laziness I don't know), so calling me lazy probably isn't the best idea :pac:
The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4] The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]
philologos wrote: » The reality is that we engage with the universe as it is, and God in terms of how He was revealed to me. Arguing about a-hypothetical-god-concept-that-differs-from-the-revealed-concept is pointless in terms of discussing Christianity.
philologos wrote: » Zombrex: I and others have asked you to clarify what you're arguing. You've consistently failed to do so.
Zombrex wrote: » philologos wrote: » The reality is that we engage with the universe as it is, and God in terms of how He was revealed to me. Arguing about a-hypothetical-god-concept-that-differs-from-the-revealed-concept is pointless in terms of discussing Christianity. Well no actually, the reality is you engage in reality as how you expect it to be. You do not expect God to order you rape someone because you believe it is immoral. You believe it is immoral. Emphasis on the you. And you expect God to reflect your morality. You can say that this isn't the case, that you don't personally judge that rape is immoral or moral that you merely listen to what Christianity says and conclude that rape is immoral based on that, and thus if God told you to rape someone you would know that this isn't God because it would contradict the New Testament. But that is a fudge. Christianity is interpreted like everything else, and throughout the history of Christianity Christians have be re-evaluating interpretations of both the Old and New Testament. If God appeared before you and told you something that contradicted an interpretation of Christianity that you held to but that made more moral sense to you you would happily embrace it. You asked what my ultimate point is? It is that the absolutism, objectivism and ultimate authoritativism that Christians believe their religion provides not just them but the rest of the world as a guide, doesn't exist. It is a collective delusion, asserted so many times that people believe it. I don't believe for one second that anyone here would rape anyone under the command of God. I don't believe any of you would accept an objective moral command that you personally (subjectively) believed was immoral or fundamental wrong. Which brings us to the ultimate question, what is the point of therefore claim obedience to an objective moral standard. The objective moral standard of the universe always matches the subjective moral standard of humanity at the time, and is retro-fitted onto previous versions of the objective moral stand. Now don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think you guys will agree with this. I've tried through various methods to get you to ask yourselves these questions, and perhaps the level of hostility I faced was a sign that some of the cognitive dissonance was having an effect. It was quite amusing that I was being constantly asked to prove that God commanded rape, despite me constantly explaining it was not central to the point. Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things. But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses. Which is interesting (Robin discussed this on the A&A forum with Newsite). Why do these things need to be justified in the first place? These things don't need to be justified or excused. You all know that rape is wrong. You know that independently to reading the New or Old Testaments. The suggestion therefore that God ordered anyone to rape anyone is either a) a lie or b) something that is being mis-interpreted or mis-understood for the context that it is in the Old Testament. You all knew that before you asked me to justify where this is in the OT. You all knew that before you asked for the passages. You all knew that before you read the Bible at all.
ISAW wrote: » You have been answered on this different question by several people. I will repost my answer below. But you are switching the issue to a different question.
ISAW wrote: » The question is about your recurrent theme of rape and murder which you have posted in several threads and when called on it you switch to a different argument.
ISAW wrote: » You fail to answer the following and then appear in another thread here or in humanities or in A&A rehearsing your "rape and murder" argument.
ISAW wrote: » I do agree with you that there is another argument about whether absolute morals or natural law exists but again you seem to "pick and mix" according to whereever you enter into the debate.
ISAW wrote: » For example you appeal to the absolute of natural law below where you say it is universally accepted that rape is wrong.
ISAW wrote: » Elsewher you will happily say you don't believe in absolute morals which are always wrong
ISAW wrote: » Then when faced with individuals not being dependable and the question of what is your source of objective morals you enter into another quandry.
ISAW wrote: » It would seem that because you don't believe in natural law with respect to morality you have to contrive arguments against it. But when you do you can't propose an alternative which is relative/subjective because of obvious flaws in that alternative.
ISAW wrote: » And here we have the rehearsal of the "absolute morals" premise which you don't actually believe. Your argument is based on things you don't accept as true.
ISAW wrote: » Try answering the "1or 2 which is it?" issue above would you?
ISAW wrote: » The Christian God is a rational God.
Zombrex wrote: » Well no actually, the reality is you engage in reality as how you expect it to be.
If God appeared before you and told you something that contradicted an interpretation of Christianity that you held to but that made more moral sense to you you would happily embrace it.
You asked what my ultimate point is? It is that the absolutism, objectivism and ultimate authoritativism that Christians believe their religion provides not just them but the rest of the world as a guide, doesn't exist. It is a collective delusion, asserted so many times that people believe it.
I don't believe for one second that anyone here would rape anyone under the command of God.
I don't believe any of you would accept an objective moral command that you personally (subjectively) believed was immoral or fundamental wrong.
The objective moral standard of the universe always matches the subjective moral standard of humanity at the time, and is retro-fitted onto previous versions of the objective moral stand.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think you guys will agree with this. I've tried through various methods to get you to ask yourselves these questions, and perhaps the level of hostility I faced was a sign that some of the cognitive dissonance was having an effect.
It was quite amusing that I was being constantly asked to prove that God commanded rape, despite me constantly explaining it was not central to the point.
Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things.
But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.
You all know that rape is wrong. You know that independently to reading the New or Old Testaments.
The suggestion therefore that God ordered anyone to rape anyone is either a) a lie or b) something that is being mis-interpreted or mis-understood for the context that it is in the Old Testament. You all knew that before you asked me to justify where this is in the OT. You all knew that before you asked for the passages. You all knew that before you read the Bible at all.
philologos wrote: » I asked you to clarify what you've been saying and you've consistently refused to do this. Unless you do this this is a grandiose waste of time for both parties.
philologos wrote: » Show us where God commands rape or retract. AKA be honest. I care that you're lying about Christianity and I find that disgraceful.
ISAW wrote: » Snip the rest where you jump off int the "subjective/relative/personally interpreted" morals argument. Christianity isn't based on relative morals.
ISAW wrote: » This has been demonstrated as not being the case by several people. Above you have an example where that argument might hold for Islam but not for Christianity.
ISAW wrote: » The mask slips!
ISAW wrote: » And here you abandon the absolute immoral rape which you stated earlier and expose your real belief that there is not such thing and morality is relative. You are aware of the flaws in that premise too?
ISAW wrote: » LOL! Why because if they did it would be wrong? always wrong? Absolutely?
ISAW wrote: » You have been shown that a Christian God wont do unreasonable things just as a man with a beard cant logically say "men with beards are liars"
ISAW wrote: » Theonly cognitive dissonance is the constant logical contradictions you present. e.g. starting with the premise of rape always being wrong in order to prove that it isnt always wrong.
ISAW wrote: » And you are being asked WHERE did God do this? Where is your evidence? You say you don't wish to go into it jump to another issue and then sneak back into the "God commanded rape and murder" issue.
ISAW wrote: » But apparently you don't since above you claimn it is all relative to interpretation! Which is it?
ISAW wrote: » YOU are3 the one making the claims! Stop trying to shift it onto others shoulders. Supply evidence or admit you dont have it and shut up already!
Zombrex wrote: » Well no phil, what you have asked me to do is to fall into the stereotype you hope I would be where I'm arguing that God commands Christians to rape people. That would be great because you have an answer for that. Nice. Easy. Of course since that isn't what I'm arguing it is a lot more difficult. But then who ever said it was going to be easy. :pac: That is not what you care about. If you did care about that you would have gone back to the discussion I was having with PDN which I already linked to and read through the posts detailing what I believe is rape in the Old Testament. What you actually care about is avoiding what I'm actually discussing with this little goose chase of trying to make out that I'm saying God orders Christians to rape people. But that is easy, you already have an answer for that. It doesn't involve thinking about your beliefs or the basis of your beliefs.
Zombrex wrote: » I'm not switching anything. You have mistakenly believed that I was working up to a conclusion that God orders Christians to rape people. I was never working up to this.
I actually answered Phil's questions twice. It isn't my issue if you simply ignore the answers.
No, that is just how it appears to you because you are so over egar to try and find problems with what I'm saying that you rush to conclusions I never made.
No. Something being universally accepted is still subjective to human opinion. It is just that everyone agrees. That is not natural law. Natural law by definition is objective and not subjective to human opinion.
I don't say that. I say I do not believe in objective morals which are wrong independently to human opinion.
I have no issue with absolute morality, I think lots of things are absolutely wrong. But that is just my opinion on them, as you like to say.
The quandry is of your own making because you confuse absolute morals (morals applied absolutely) and objective morals (morals that are true or false independently to human opinion)
No, I believe in absolute morals. You though seem to have a hard time telling the difference between absolute morals and objective morals.
Ok, but since that is based on God's reasoning, not yours, it is some what irrelevant to the point.
Why do you care if God commanded rape? God commanded lots of terrible things. But of course Christianity has had 2000 years to square that circle and have plenty of excuses for why God appears to command terrible immoral things but why they aren't really terrible or immoral. But none for rape, so the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.
Being a supporter of a literal interpretation of the Bible you are in a perfect postion to understand this form of reasoning. Judging by discussions on other threads you seem to support actions by either God or his followers described in the Bible that I would consider as being acts of horrific genocide. You some how rationalise these actions as actually being Gods will and not evil at all
philologos wrote: » Apparently Zombrex knows more about what I care about than I do.
ISAW wrote: » Where did i say you were? what i said was you claimed it? Do you now either 1. deny you claimed it or 2. withdraw that claim and admit it was unsupported ?
ISAW wrote: » So if everyone agreed that for example sex with a child is okay would that mean it is okay?
ISAW wrote: » The Germans passedlaws against Jews. Did that mean those laws made it right to persecute Jews?
ISAW wrote: » So whether persecuting Jews is wrong is just your opinion. It isn't actually wrong it is just an opinion?
ISAW wrote: » The quandry is "Is rape/murder" wrong or is that only an opinion or collective opinion?
ISAW wrote: » Is rape then always wrong? Does it depend on a whole society of peroples subjective opinion or not? If the society believe persecuting Jews is okay are they wrong?
ISAW wrote: » Can you list for me three things which are objectively wrong or true but not absolutely wrong and another three which are absolutely wrong but not objectively wrong/true?
ISAW wrote: » It is totally relevant if the basis of you argument is a commandment by God which would contradict reason.
Zombrex wrote: » and (in my opinion) rape
Soul Winner wrote: » Thanks for clearing that up for us :rolleyes:
Zombrex wrote: » I deny I claimed it. You know this because I already pointed out to you that you cannot provide a single quote from where I claimed it.
the suggestion that God commanded rape cannot be explained away with these other excuses.
actions by either God or his followers described in the Bible that I would consider as being acts of horrific genocide.
I can't bear the notion of someone telling me a god who commands that women be executed if they are not virgins on their wedding night, or commands that homosexuals be stoned to death, is 'perfect' ... Try women who are raped in a town. Yes your 'perfect' God said that they should be executed by stoning because will they should have called out shouldn't they?
While describing (and justifying) genocide, rape, and slavery. So no that isn't really the point Jakkass, you aren't going to find much support on this forum for the idea that the Bible has "something to say" beyond justifying the war crimes of the Hebrew armies (God told us to go pillage your lands, sorry about that!), nor is freedom of religion a justification to expose children to something violent, any more than the Waco cult were justified in showing very violent movies to their children to prepare them for the war they were expecting.
The Bible never says "rape", the Bible never says "sex" "Lie with" is a how the Bible says sex. There is nothing here that would suggest that God in any way made these women want to have sex with these people. I find it interesting thought that the idea that God would allow these women to be raped disturbs you, so you are searching for a way for it not to be rape. Does the idea that God would make an infant so sick that he died not equally disturb you? ... Please tell me what part of the passage suggests that the wives were willing participants with being made to have sex in broad day light in front of their husband?
ISAW wrote: » Ther are two clear examples just four or so messages above above where I quote you you stating:
ISAW wrote: » and one from long ago ( from the time when the Pope stated the reference I supplied on "faith and reason" ) in which you stated
ISAW wrote: » There is ample evidence that you have clearly claimed the God of the Bible endorsed rape and Christians follow a book which endorse4s it.
ISAW wrote: » Do you still deny you claimed it?
Zombrex wrote: » Was there any doubt? ... No offence :P
ISAW wrote: » You clearly say this in various discussions. I want you on the record here saying that you never claimed it.
Zombrex wrote: » Can you point out the "Christians" bit in that quote (which was referring to the Old Testament)
Unfortunately "Christians" can find a justification in the Bible to do pretty much anything they want to do, from starting wars to stringing up homosexuals to bombing an abortion clinic, in exactly the same way a commited Muslim can find a passage in the Quaran to justify blowing up a bus full of children. The idea that Christianity is in some way a safer religion because Jesus didn't say "go have a holy war" is rather weak in my view, and ignores why religious violence, from raping women, to killing homosexuals, to blow up buildings, occurs in the first place.
Christian - No, you must experience it for yourself, you must accept Jesus into your life and Jesus will guide you. Non-believer - So, I should accept a god despite the fact that I find him to be seriously morally questionable because you assure me that once I do accept this god, it will be explained to me why he isn't morally questionable, despite the fact that you can't tell me right now why he isn't morally questionable, despite the glaring passages in the Bible describing rape and murder. ... When I was a teenager and thinking about all this stuff properly for the first time one of the reasons I rejected of idea of worshipping the Judeo/Christian God that Irish society was full of was I read the Bible. Not the fluffy children bible I had been given growing up by my Catholic father, but the proper Bible. I read the passages about war, the passages about bloodshed, the passages about rape and slavery. And I read how God commanded that these things happen. And long before I rejected the concept of God out right and became an atheist, I rejected the idea of worshipping the god of the Old Testament. I would not follow or worship a God that commands these things, even if he did exist.
If you want to change that to saying God ordered the Israelites to rape people then I've no problem saying I believe that. Both those things are true, I do believe God endorsed rape and I believe that Christians hold the Old Testament to be the word of God.
ISAW wrote: » Trying to get off the hook?
ISAW wrote: » clearly above you are discussion Christians and rape and genocide endorsed by the same God.
ISAW wrote: » The question isn't whether it is endorsed or not butwhether you claimed that the Bible or Christians or God endoeces rape and murder.
ISAW wrote: » You never made those claims????
ISAW wrote: » Okay so now you admit 1. The Judaeo/Christian God endorsed rape and murder according to the Bible.
ISAW wrote: » Now where is your evidence for it?
