Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

A point of clarification, Simtech - I did address your question. You even thanked me for it. Perhaps others apart form PDN and myself also responded. On top of that I thought that I had also provided a number of links that specifically sought to offer a theodicy. But maybe not.

David B Hart attempts to answer the problem of natural evil here. Additionally, Paul Copan, who recently enough wrote a book entitled Is God A Moral Monster, was in discussion with an atheist on the topic of God's actions as recorded in the OT. See here for a link to a link. There are many other attempts to address these age old questions, and while some are better than others, all of them will fail to give a completely satisfactory answer. This is no surprise.

ISAW wrote: »

Where is God ordering rape well established?

Where does god order rape here?

Where? Where is the rape of women commanded?

Numbers 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

And God threatens rape.

Samuel 2:11-12 "This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel."

Yes, I understand this disgusting treatment of women as objects to be "given" or "kept" was accepted at the time, and not legally considered "rape". But it is certainly rape in the modern sense.

Simtech

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A point of clarification, Simtech - I did address your question. You even thanked me for it. Perhaps others apart form PDN and myself also responded. On top of that I thought that I had also provided a number of links that specifically sought to offer a theodicy. But maybe not.

David B Hart attempts to answer the problem of natural evil here. Additionally, Paul Copan, who recently enough wrote a book entitled Is God A Moral Monster, was in discussion with an atheist on the topic of God's actions as recorded in the OT. See here for a link to a link. There are many other attempts to address these age old questions, and while some are better than others, all of them will fail to give a completely satisfactory answer. This is no surprise.

Yes Fanny you did attempt to address it and I did and do thank you, you are the one who usually responds in the most constructive and instructive manner. I cannot guarantee that I will always understand you though, you are obviously much better educated than I on the subject. I did seek to further clarify my position and ask for further opinion here immediately after your post.

I guess if I'm honest that I seek the satisfactory answer that you point out will never be had. It is my nature.

Btw., I do follow your links. I stand with Ivan!

"But what makes Ivan’s argument so disturbing is not that he accuses God of failing to save the innocent; rather, he rejects salvation itself, insofar as he understands it, and on moral grounds. He grants that one day there may be an eternal harmony established, one that we will discover somehow necessitated the suffering of children, and perhaps mothers will forgive the murderers of their babies, and all will praise God’s justice; but Ivan wants neither harmony—“for love of man I reject it,” “it is not worth the tears of that one tortured child”—nor forgiveness; and so, not denying there is a God, he simply chooses to return his ticket of entrance to God’s Kingdom. After all, Ivan asks, if you could bring about a universal and final beatitude for all beings by torturing one small child to death, would you think the price acceptable?"

Morbert wrote: »

Numbers 31:18 "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

And God threatens rape.

So you contend "keep for yourselves" - "rape them" and not given that the virgin women of that culture ( basically the children) were unmarried and "keep for yourselves" = " make indentured servants of them" ?

Samuel 2:11-12 "This is what the LORD says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel."

Well that is Nathan not God speaking but I'll accept Natan was guided by God to say it.

You skipped verse 8 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. David had been given Saul's wives. Well does that also mean rape?

http://christianthinktank.com/given2rape.html
Marriage ( even up to Victorian Times) was a political way to prevent wars.
Like the indentured servants rather than death or rape example above David getting Saul's wives was an act of charity. So rather than slaughter a household a conquering king would take them for his own household and preserve them.

Now as to the accusation of rape in broad daylight it is linked with Davids son.

chapter 16:
21 Then A·hith´o·phel said to Ab´sa·lom: “Have relations with the concubines of your father, whom he left behind to take care of the house. And all Israel will certainly hear that you have made yourself foul-smelling to your father, and the hands of all those who are with you will certainly become strong.” 22 Accordingly they pitched a tent for Ab´sa·lom upon the roof, and Ab´sa·lom began to have relations with the concubines of his father under the eyes of all Israel.

So was this about David raping anyone????
How about anyoine else raping anyone. The event itself was equivalent to a royal wedding, and not a 'rape' by any means. cf. Ps 19:5[4]; Joel 2:16
equivalent to a royal wedding,
Since marrying a father's wife was forbidden in Israelite law, the whole incident may well have been staged as a 'statement' that David was dead (instead of some outrageously offensive crime in front of his new citizenry!)

Members of the royal harem were all upper-class figures, representing important political alliances, both foreign and domestic. These women often had important duties in the administration. For a new ruler, BEFORE Israel actually 'came to power', to publicly and violently rape "high-brow" daughters of leading families of his constituency and of his international allies would be unthinkable and diplomatic suicide! Absalom was not 'politically naïve'-his rise to power as described in chapter 15 shows an exceptionally crafty and smooth individual.

The whole point of the action was to 'enter the harem' (hence the tent) in front of the citizenry. The harem was off-limits to anyone except the king (and pre-pubescent princes). By visually entering the tent (in which the mini-harem was), the damage was done: the throne usurped, the predecessor declared 'dead and gone.

That this event was understood as a marriage--instead of a rape--is also supported by David's actions upon his return and after the death of Absalom: the women were placed in a separate harem-house, provided for, and treated as royal widows.2 Sam 20.3

What this nets out to is this:

1. the event being described looks like a royal wedding (and not like a rape)

2. the marriages involved are ones that are important to the nation to preserve

3. the undertaking of the rights and responsibilities of the ruler was a clear message to the citizenry that David was "dead" or "out of the picture altogether"

4. there is no hint of rape, and the entire context of who these women were argues against there being ANY brutality, ANY violation, and ANY disgrace

5. These marriages (and wives) were not David's "possession" in any sense of the word-they were more like 'national assets' (like a king would be). Their status was high, their importance was significant, and the king had to treat them with diplomacy and care.

Yes, I understand this disgusting treatment of women as objects to be "given" or "kept" was accepted at the time, and not legally considered "rape". But it is certainly rape in the modern sense.

Nice sidestep. The old atheistic "modern" progressive morality. As if people nowadays are any better than then. What fascist elitist nonsense. You can't have it both ways. You cant have a relativist morality interpreted as the culture wants and then use your "nowadays" morality to judge other times. The alternative is you abandon relativism and accept absolute morals. Do you do that? I wont progress the argument if you say you don't accept natural law or absolute arguments since such a progression is unnecessary.

Simtech wrote: »

Oh well that's alright then, lets forget all about it, let bygones be bygones, let's never speak of it again then.

So first wholesale slaughter, then turning the other cheek. How oh how could I have not seen one as the obvious and natural progression of the other?

It's clear to me now what a stand up job God has done of managing the revelation of his existence ruling out any possibility of doubt from those he made inquisitive. Top job there big man!

Im glad you now see things differently and have changed you mind Simtech. But I don't think anyone said God ruled out doubt. how could one have faith otherwise?

Simtech

It's been an interesting journey with you all on this forum. I particularly thank Fanny Craddock for this gem of a quote which explains exactly where I stand and I think is worth reposting.

I stand with Ivan!

"But what makes Ivan’s argument so disturbing is not that he accuses God of failing to save the innocent; rather, he rejects salvation itself, insofar as he understands it, and on moral grounds. He grants that one day there may be an eternal harmony established, one that we will discover somehow necessitated the suffering of children, and perhaps mothers will forgive the murderers of their babies, and all will praise God’s justice; but Ivan wants neither harmony—“for love of man I reject it,” “it is not worth the tears of that one tortured child”—nor forgiveness; and so, not denying there is a God, he simply chooses to return his ticket of entrance to God’s Kingdom. After all, Ivan asks, if you could bring about a universal and final beatitude for all beings by torturing one small child to death, would you think the price acceptable?"

Found here. Good luck all.

ISAW wrote: »

Nice sidestep. The old atheistic "modern" progressive morality. As if people nowadays are any better than then. What fascist elitist nonsense. You can't have it both ways. You cant have a relativist morality interpreted as the culture wants and then use your "nowadays" morality to judge other times. The alternative is you abandon relativism and accept absolute morals. Do you do that? I wont progress the argument if you say you don't accept natural law or absolute arguments since such a progression is unnecessary.

This has nothing to do with what I said (A line I have to use frequently when talking to you). The culturally accepted rape and objectification of women is as disgusting as the objectification and rape of women today. "Harems" and the use of marriage, or the use of "virgin servant women" as a political tool are all fancy terms for the rape of women. In Numbers, they are not talking about "basically children". If God meant children, he would have said children. God said virgin women. God also threatens to have someone engage in sexual intercourse with David's wife. This is rape. This is the disgusting objectification of women.

Now, of course you can argue about why God exploited such disgusting things. But I am not here to argue about that. PDN has given a Christian understanding that I find acceptable, if contrived. I am here to say the state-sanctioned rape and violence towards women was ordered by God.

Morbert wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what I said

What you said:

this disgusting treatment of women as objects to be "given" or "kept" was accepted at the time, and not legally considered "rape". But it is certainly rape in the modern sense.

The culturally accepted rape and objectification of women is as disgusting as the objectification and rape of women today. "Harems" and the use of marriage, or the use of "virgin servant women" as a political tool are all fancy terms for the rape of women.

Rubbish! Servant children working the land are not "rape victims".

In Numbers, they are not talking about "basically children". If God meant children, he would have said children. God said virgin women.

And the "culturally accepted" view of thatday was that children were married usuallyabove 12.

Carol Meyers points out [“The Roots of Restriction: Women in Early Israel”, Biblical Archaeologist, vol 41):

http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

“Beyond this, however, the intensified need for female participation in working out the Mosaic revolution in the early Israelite period can be seen in the Bible. Looking again at Numbers 31, an exception to the total purge of the Midianite population is to be noted. In addition to the metal objects which were exempt from utter destruction, so too were the “young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). These captives, however, were not immediately brought into the Israelite camp. Instead, they and their captors were kept outside the camp for seven days in a kind of quarantine period. (Note that the usual incubation period for the kinds of infectious diseases which could conceivably have existed in this situation is two or three to six days [Eickhoff 1977].) Afterward, they thoroughly washed themselves and all their clothing before they entered the camp. This incident is hardly an expression of lascivious male behavior; rather, it reflects the desperate need for women of childbearing age, a need so extreme that the utter destruction of the Midianite foes—and the prevention of death by plague—as required by the law of the herem could be waived in the interest of sparing the young women. The Israelites weighed the life-death balance, and the need for females of childbearing age took precedence.”

the accusation that these girls were for “sex slave” purposes contradicts what we know about the culture and about the event.

God also threatens to have some engage in sexual intercourse with David's wife. This is rape. This is the disgusting objectification of women.

God did not rape Davids wife! His son for political reasons usurped his household by adultery. It was not "rape" in the way you make it out. It was more like a royal wedding.

Now, of course you can argue about why God exploited such disgusting things. But I am not here to argue about that.

You claimed God ordered rape and you have fallen short of proving it.

PDF has given a Christian understanding that I find acceptable, if contrived. I am here to say the state-sanctioned rape and violence towards women was ordered by God.

Where? when? Adultery was foretold but God didn't either order or sanction rape.

Simtech wrote: »

It's been an interesting journey with you all on this forum. I particularly thank Fanny Craddock for this gem of a quote which explains exactly where I stand and I think is worth reposting.

I stand with Ivan!

"But what makes Ivan’s argument so disturbing is not that he accuses God of failing to save the innocent; rather, he rejects salvation itself, insofar as he understands it, and on moral grounds. He grants that one day there may be an eternal harmony established, one that we will discover somehow necessitated the suffering of children, and perhaps mothers will forgive the murderers of their babies, and all will praise God’s justice; but Ivan wants neither harmony—“for love of man I reject it,” “it is not worth the tears of that one tortured child”—nor forgiveness; and so, not denying there is a God, he simply chooses to return his ticket of entrance to God’s Kingdom. After all, Ivan asks, if you could bring about a universal and final beatitude for all beings by torturing one small child to death, would you think the price acceptable?"

Found here. Good luck all.

Likewise, the following is my favourite quote:

We can rejoice that we are saved not through the immanent mechanisms of history and nature, but by grace; that God will not unite all of history’s many strands in one great synthesis, but will judge much of history false and damnable; that He will not simply reveal the sublime logic of fallen nature, but will strike off the fetters in which creation languishes; and that, rather than showing us how the tears of a small girl suffering in the dark were necessary for the building of the Kingdom, He will instead raise her up and wipe away all tears from her eyes—and there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying, nor any more pain, for the former things will have passed away, and He that sits upon the throne will say, “Behold, I make all things new.”

Anyway, Godspeed on your journey, Simtech. Keep asking the big questions of life, the universe and everything. The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.

Morbert wrote: »

This has nothing to do with what I said (A line I have to use frequently when talking to you). The culturally accepted rape and objectification of women is as disgusting as the objectification and rape of women today.

I can't help but wonder if the word "disgusting" is not deliberately chosen over a word that would carry with it something of a moral judgement? Disgusting isn't the same as wrong.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I can't help but wonder if the word "disgusting" is not deliberately chosen over a word that would carry with it something of a moral judgement? Disgusting isn't the same as wrong.

But the atheist/relativist/nihilist doesn't believe in something always being wrong. It is onlywrong depending on what the society of the day or they themselves feel or "wrong2 is a meaningless concept. That won't stop them telling you that by their self defined standards that acts of "rape" ( defined by their definition) in the Bible commanded by God ( in their opinion) were "wrong" however

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

But the atheist/relativist/nihilist doesn't believe in something always being wrong. It is onlywrong depending on what the society of the day or they themselves feel or "wrong2 is a meaningless concept. That won't stop them telling you that by their self defined standards that acts of "rape" ( defined by their definition) in the Bible commanded by God ( in their opinion) were "wrong" however

how is that better or worse than the bible ISAW ? At least in the example you have used there is at least the possibility of change and improvement.

Why is something the is unchanging regarded as better ?

In fairness there are atheists who believe in moral absolutes. For example, it is always wrong to sexually abuse children even if everybody else is doing it. How they arrive at this is position another question.

I know Sam Harris attempted to answer this his most recent book. From the reviews I've read (mostly from Christians but also from non-Christians) he apparently didn't succeed.

recedite

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

It means exactly what it says on the tin. Kill the men, steal their land and property, enslave the women and children, taking any virgins you fancy for your harem.
But do modern theists believe that this Bronze Age morality is the Word of God or not? The responses;

Morbert wrote: »

PDF has given a Christian understanding that I find acceptable, if contrived. I am here to say the state-sanctioned rape and violence towards women was ordered by God.

Well at least Morbert is not prone to the sort of mental gymnastics that have allowed otherwise sane and moral people to sanction terrible atrocities down through the ages, without actually admitting it to themselves;

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well it was better than killing them. It was common practice that the spoils of war included women and children. I'd rather that than be killed or left defenseless in the wilderness somewhere.....
God killing someone for evil acts and sins is not murder, its judgment. Why can ye not get this very very very simple concept? Its staggering to me that ye cannot grasp this......
We hardly ever hear of all the good that religion does in the world because the media ...blah blah...

philologos wrote: »

I believe the entire Bible is God's word, revealed in stages from beginning to end.

PDN wrote: »

Yes we do. And as such we believe that it was part of the instructions God gave the Israelites...

I'm very glad I live in a modern secular society, with secular laws decided on by the people themselves, in accordance with a sophisticated moral outlook evolved over time.
We have arrived at this point despite religion, not because of it.

Sonics2k

As I wouldn't want to derail the Christmas thread, I decided to ask a question here of Onesiumus, and possibly any others.

Onesimus wrote: »

Every feast of Christ has something ridiculous to accompany it. Christmas time it's Santa Claus, Easter time it's the Easter Bunny and All hallows eve it's goblins and ghosts. All of which the creation of are influenced by the devil to distract us from the true meaning of those feasts.

Thanks for sharing your story.

Please tell me, you are aware that each of these feasts were done by various regions across the world.
For example, the Celts of Europe had their winter feasts to celebrate the Solstice.
Mithra's birth was celebrated on December 25th by the Romans, and when Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church rose, they changed it to the birth of Jesus, so as not to interfere with the yearly traditions.
We now for a fact that the various aspects of Christmas were all tied in from various European/Scandinavian traditions, such as Christmas Trees, Mistletoe and the like. All of these aspects were tied into the Christian Christmas to help convert the people of various countries.
This is fact.
All Hallow's was a pagan festival to remember the dead, and was around for centuries before Christianity existed.

All these holidays are nothing more than amalgamations of various Pagan rituals to help get more people to convert to Christianity.

ISAW wrote: »

But the atheist/relativist/nihilist doesn't believe in something always being wrong. It is onlywrong depending on what the society of the day or they themselves feel or "wrong2 is a meaningless concept. That won't stop them telling you that by their self defined standards that acts of "rape" ( defined by their definition) in the Bible commanded by God ( in their opinion) were "wrong" however

Recedite used the perfect term: mental gymnastics. You keep arguing over things I have not said, while at the same time applying your own form of moral relativism. When you take 12 year old girls from a community, marry them and have sex with them, that is rape. I don't just mean rape in the statutory sense. I mean taking women from a community, against their will, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, against their will. This was acceptable back then, but it doesn't change what it is.

So stop trying to inject your own misunderstandings of my meta-position on morality, as it is entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I can't help but wonder if the word "disgusting" is not deliberately chosen over a word that would carry with it something of a moral judgement? Disgusting isn't the same as wrong.

It was deliberate, as I want to avoid a usual debate about God and morality.

Morbert wrote: »

It was deliberate, as I want to avoid a usual debate about God and morality.

Appreciated!

recedite wrote: »

We have arrived at this point despite religion, not because of it.

Rolls easily off the tongue, no? But do you care to back that up?

nickcave

Sonics2k wrote: »

Mithra's birth was celebrated on December 25th by the Romans, and when Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church rose, they changed it to the birth of Jesus, so as not to interfere with the yearly traditions.

Yup - and for a similar reason mass is celebrated on a Sunday rather than the Sabbath which would have been Saturday. This was done to mitigate the political backlash of imposing Christianity on Rome's pagan population.

I see Christmas as a human celebration. For me it's a tradition that has nothing to do with religion. And I don't insist on such inanities as "the Holiday Season" or "Xmas" - there's no point really. Christians who celebrate Holy Thursday might think again if they realised that Thursday is named for the Norse god Thor.

recedite

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Rolls easily off the tongue, no? But do you care to back that up?

Then; Divine kings, anointed by God. Tribalism. Religion as education. Commandments. War (mostly).

Now; Secular Democracy. Separation of Church and State. Education flavoured with religion. International Law. Scientific advances. Peace (mostly).

philologos

recedite wrote: »

Deuteronomy 20:10-14

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

It means exactly what it says on the tin. Kill the men, steal their land and property, enslave the women and children, taking any virgins you fancy for your harem.
But do modern theists believe that this Bronze Age morality is the Word of God or not? The responses;

Morbert wrote: »

PDF has given a Christian understanding that I find acceptable, if contrived. I am here to say the state-sanctioned rape and violence towards women was ordered by God.

Well at least Morbert is not prone to the sort of mental gymnastics that have allowed otherwise sane and moral people to sanction terrible atrocities down through the ages, without actually admitting it to themselves;

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well it was better than killing them. It was common practice that the spoils of war included women and children. I'd rather that than be killed or left defenseless in the wilderness somewhere.....
God killing someone for evil acts and sins is not murder, its judgment. Why can ye not get this very very very simple concept? Its staggering to me that ye cannot grasp this......
We hardly ever hear of all the good that religion does in the world because the media ...blah blah...

philologos wrote: »

I believe the entire Bible is God's word, revealed in stages from beginning to end.

PDN wrote: »

Yes we do. And as such we believe that it was part of the instructions God gave the Israelites...

I'm very glad I live in a modern secular society, with secular laws decided on by the people themselves, in accordance with a sophisticated moral outlook evolved over time.
We have arrived at this point despite religion, not because of it.

Sounds like revisionism to me.

Christianity demonstrates its own case. Anyone can pluck out passages with little or no interest in establishing context.

recedite wrote: »

Then; Divine kings, anointed by God. Tribalism. Religion as education. Commandments. War (mostly).

Now; Secular Democracy. Separation of Church and State. Education flavoured with religion. International Law. Scientific advances. Peace (mostly).

Thank you for elaborating on your opinion. I'm looking for something more substantive though.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thank you for elaborating on your opinion. I'm looking for something more substantive though.

I don't think recedite understands that Christianity as it is described in the New Testament is entirely compatible with secularism as the thesis that the State should favour no given religion. In fact it is compatible with states that actively persecute Christians.

Christianity was never intended to be a political force. That only came into play after Constantine made Christianity the State religion of the Roman Empire, Christianity was never intended to rule by political or military might, but rather it came to be in order to bring man to God once and for all through Jesus, and that Jesus would be Lord guiding us, and strengthening us all.

In fact Biblically Christianity is the best example of a grassroots movement.

Morbert wrote: »

Recedite used the perfect term: mental gymnastics. You keep arguing over things I have not said, while at the same time applying your own form of moral relativism. When you take 12 year old girls from a community, marry them and have sex with them, that is rape.

According to todays laws are always?
And is it morally wrong ? Always?

And if someone does not take a twelve year old and have sex with them but instead uses them to reap their harvest in their fields that is not rape is it?

I don't just mean rape in the statutory sense. I mean taking women from a community, against their will, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, against their will. This was acceptable back then, but it doesn't change what it is.

Where does the Bible say it was acceptable to God or that God commanded it?

So stop trying to inject your own misunderstandings of my meta-position on morality, as it is entirely irrelevant to anything I have said.

So you can't actually say whether you believe rape is always wrong?

It was deliberate, as I want to avoid a usual debate about God and morality.

So you are quite happy to debate the existence of God but not as a morally good God who guides peoples conscience? At the same time you suggest he does not guide their conscience but encourages them to "morally unacceptable" rape?
Since you don't care whether right or wrong why address the issue of rape at all? What is the significance of saying "it was acceptable back then"?

Sonics2k

ISAW wrote: »

According to todays laws are always?
And is it morally wrong ? Always?

And if someone does not take a twelve year old and have sex with them but instead uses them to reap their harvest in their fields that is not rape is it?

Yes, it is morally wrong. Granted by todays standards.

And no, that obviously would not be rape, that would either be slavery or indentured servitude.

Please stop trying to beat around the bush here, according to the bible, god says "take them for your own". It's pretty obvious that weren't willingly taken, so god basically endorsed either kidnapping, rape, or slavery.

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

Yup - and for a similar reason mass is celebrated on a Sunday rather than the Sabbath which would have been Saturday. This was done to mitigate the political backlash of imposing Christianity on Rome's pagan population.

You missed the rather obvious reason why Christians chose to worship on a Sunday. It was because Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Also the Day of Pentecost, viewed by Christians as the 'birthday' of the church, was on a Sunday.

There was no reason for Christians to observe the Sabbath (Saturday) as it developed as a faith among Gentiles - which is why we see Christians breaking bread on Sunday in Troas in Acts Chapter 20 - long before anyone had got around to thinking of Rome's pagan population or backlashes.

Sorry to pop the balloon of your conspiracy theory.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

You missed the rather obvious reason why Christians chose to worship on a Sunday. It was because Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Also the Day of Pentecost, viewed by Christians as the 'birthday' of the church, was on a Sunday.

There was no reason for Christians to observe the Sabbath (Saturday) as it developed as a faith among Gentiles - which is why we see Christians breaking bread on Sunday in Troas in Acts Chapter 20 - long before anyone had got around to thinking of Rome's pagan population or backlashes.

Sorry to pop the balloon of your conspiracy theory.

Well in terms of 'keeping holy the Sabbath' Christians do have a reason to observe the Sabbath. As far as I know, there's no canonical workaround for this: Christians still observe the fourth commandment as outlined in Exodus. Do you not?

I don't know what you mean by conspiracy theory, but please - this is hardly the place for sarcasm.

ISAW wrote: »

According to todays laws are always?
And is it morally wrong ? Always?

And if someone does not take a twelve year old and have sex with them but instead uses them to reap their harvest in their fields that is not rape is it?

Why do they have to be virgins? Are you claiming the emphasis on virgin girls, as opposed to children in general, has no significance?

Where does the Bible say it was acceptable to God or that God commanded it?

So you can't actually say whether you believe rape is always wrong?

So you are quite happy to debate the existence of God but not as a morally good God who guides peoples conscience? At the same time you suggest he does not guide their conscience but encourages them to "morally unacceptable" rape?

I am "happy to debate the existence of God" insofar as I am happy to argue for the consistency and validity of atheism, and defend it against arguments like the axiological argument. Again, I don't know what that has to do with what I said.

Since you don't care whether right or wrong why address the issue of rape at all? What is the significance of saying "it was acceptable back then"?

To avoid the situation that can be found in fringe muslim communities, where it is deemed "impossible" for a husband to rape his wife. Acceptable rape is still rape.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yes, it is morally wrong. Granted by todays standards.

So you donmt apploy todays standards to the past or you dont think absolute morality exists?
Which is it?
Either would suggest you can't argue about ancient "morally wrong" acts.

And no, that obviously would not be rape, that would either be slavery or indentured servitude.

Please stop trying to beat around the bush here, according to the bible, god says "take them for your own". It's pretty obvious that weren't willingly taken, so god basically endorsed either kidnapping, rape, or slavery.

Or indentured servitude which is not rape?
So that would be obvious then would it that rape is not certainly mentioned here?

Morbert wrote: »

Why do they have to be virgins? Are you claiming the emphasis on virgin girls, as opposed to children in general, has no significance?

Yes there is a clear emphasis. And the reason was already given virgins = young unmarried. In Suraria these were children.

To avoid the situation that can be found in fringe muslim communities, where it is deemed "impossible" for a husband to rape his wife. Acceptable rape is still rape.

No such argument has been on behalf of Christians has it?