Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW · 26-03-2012 5:44pm

Wh1stler wrote: »

It was you who brought rape into it as being morally 'right' or 'wrong' and I answered with 'In the the event that the human race depended on it, I don't think that rape would be wrong.'

And this is where you fall out with Philosophy and theology 101
One cant do evil so that good may come out of it.

I hadn't made any claim that God ordered rape but when I looked into that question, the situation with Abraham occurred to me and that tied in with 'objective morality' with regard to adultery and I found a story where a father was drugged and raped by his two daughters who were concerned that he didn't have a male heir.

so he didnt do it of his own free will. he was tricked.
It isnt rape then. Mens rea didnt exist.

God seems to not have been too concerned about this.

and you evidence for that is?

So, this is where we are at; you believe that it is always wrong to rape but it is sometimes good to hack children to death whereas I think that it is always wrong to hack children to death but it is sometimes good to rape.

im not aware of God ordering "hack the children to death"

The apparent contradiction comes when God orders human beings to do things that we believe are objectively evil. Such seems to imply that evil is part of God's perfect will.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=130480
To some extent we can say that the Old Testament reflected the people of Israel's poor theological understanding, "it was for the hardness of your ancestors' hearts that Moses wrote this commandment".
Another answer is that comfortable Westerners don't have much sympathy with people living in the Middle East, fighting for very survival. When missiles are falling from the sky, y ou read these passages in a wholly different way.
Another answer is that the OT is largely mythologised history. We don't know what the actual history of the Exodus was, though it is likely that such an event did occur, and the Israelites had stories about it rather like Americans have Wild West movies which give a fictionalised account of a real event - the settlement of the American West - but with often unrealistic depictions of Indians and the settlers' relationships with them.
Reply With Quote

how do you reply to "Islamic terrorists are claiming that they are doing God's will too"? How do I explain the difference between Israelites doing violence in God's name and Islamic terrorists doing violence in God's name to an atheist?

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 8:45pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Wh1stler Good post, expresses something that I have been trying to say throughout this thread better than I have.

Thank you.:)

I think that part of the problem with this discussion is 'ownership'. Religion and science seem to be 'staking their claims' on what is ultimately the same ground.

But does the field belong to the flowers that bloom there or do the flowers belong to the field?

tommy2bad wrote: »

We did " In a beginning was the word"
As to 'everything must change except the law', How about 'Everything Changes, but God Changes Not',

Yes, "In the beginning was the word" and the word was God; YHWH; what shall be shall be.

The 'but God Changes Not' part of your alternative phrasing is contentious though and unnecessarily so. I don't think we need to reach this conclusion because if the law and the truth is 'All Must Change' and God is the law and the truth, then we can allow that God can change because we can't say that the law is not subject to the law.

It may be that God Changes Not but we do not have to come to that conclusion. The truth may change, the law may change but the law and the truth remain supreme.

Besides, I think that the Bible depicts a God that is changing constantly through His relationship with the Universe. God sometimes repents and regrets; how can these things come about without change?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or 'everything changes but the love of God'.

Again, I would say that to use a word like 'love' is contentious.

My biggest problem with the biblical God is the notion of a 'plan'. I think it is a mistake to equate 'nature' with 'intention'. Does the water I drink 'intend' to quench my thirst or do I drink because it is in the 'nature' of water to quench my thirst? Either way, my thirst is quenched when I drink.

tommy2bad wrote: »

No. Science is looking for 'how', religion looks for 'why' Ultimately they may be caused by the same thing but the approach is different and the answers will differ wildly. Science will never satisfy those looking for a why.

One may ask, 'Why is the mountain there?' and another may ask, 'How did the mountain come to be there?'; if they are speaking of the same mountain then there is common ground.

It is good to start from common ground because in that way we can see the other's point of view.

'How?' may be knowable but 'Why?' may not be; can anyone say that God must have a reason?

tommy2bad · 26-03-2012 8:54pm

Wh1stler
The 'but God Changes Not' part of your alternative phrasing is contentious though and unnecessarily so. I don't think we need to reach this conclusion because if the law and the truth is 'All Must Change' and God is the law and the truth, then we can allow that God can change because we can't say that the law is not subject to the law.

So now you see why I'm a trinitarian, it allows for 'God' to stay in conversation with 'God' without changing, change is effected and possible.
I used to be pagan but the amount of Gods wrecked my head, if theirs more than one their not gods their superheroes. So I went to monotheism but the sticky was no reason for a being to exist on its own unchanging yet at some point changing enough to whimsically create a world, then decide to never change again. Once I remembered the old cradle catholicism the Trinity solved the conundrum . Not perfectly but, hey! you cant have everything.

tommy2bad · 26-03-2012 9:03pm

Dongle timed out, sorry for double post.
Back to where we were;

My biggest problem with the biblical God is the notion of a 'plan'. I think it is a mistake to equate 'nature' with 'intention'.

I don't think theirs a plan in the sense of first this then this and to finish off a zombie Apocalypse. It's more a relationship and it's ongoing.

'How?' may be knowable but 'Why?' may not be; can anyone say that God must have a reason?

Why is an annoying question, I know I have kids

and its not necessary to have a why out side of this piece of heaven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inwzOooXRU

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 9:43pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

I don't think theirs a plan in the sense of first this then this and to finish off a zombie Apocalypse. It's more a relationship and it's ongoing.

Then we have common ground.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Why is an annoying question, I know I have kids and its not necessary to have a why out side of this piece of heaven. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6inwzOooXRU[/QUOTE]

LOL. You are evil after all; you made me listen to The Carpenters. :eek:

Fanny Cradock · 26-03-2012 10:37pm

marienbad wrote: »

So if I am following you correctly Fanny - the sequence is a follows-

1- we are all since the fall born condemned
2- Christ came on earth to remove that original sin and
3- by his death gave a pathway to a fresh start and a way into heaven

except for one caveat which I will get to later everything is fair if a little draconian ( at least to me) in that everyone is treated equally with the exception of the chosen people. Now we get to

4-entry into heaven seems to in some way contingent in believing in the Christian message , so it is a pathway for some but not all and thus is esssentially unfair.

I'm afraid you don't follow me.
1) Nope. I think that we choose to sin.
2) This seems like the same step (1) repeated. I don't believe that all humans have sinned. And here I am talking about the very young and the unborn.
3) I wouldn't choose to put it in those words. It's more than a fresh start, it's a rebirth. And I don't think that heaven was the ultimate hope of the early Christians.
4)Perhaps. But this is the point of debate amongst Christians is it not?

marienbad wrote: »

Now back to that caveat- if Christ died for us why are we still impure so to speak, why not we all start out pure and by our own efforts remain so and enter heaven or we become the authors of our own downfall.

I would encourage you to read the book that I mentioned earlier. It either directly or roundly addresses many of the questions you have raised. I'll even send you a copy if you wish.

marienbad wrote: »

The obvious side effect to the belief that Christ died for us in order just to give us a second chance is that every single person outside the Old Testament chosen people must have gone to hell ?

But it's not obvious, not to all of us.

marienbad · 26-03-2012 10:50pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm afraid you don't follow me.
1) Nope. I think that we choose to sin.
2) This seems like the same step (1) repeated. I don't believe that all humans have sinned. And here I am talking about the very young and the unborn.
3) I wouldn't choose to put it in those words. It's more than a fresh start, it's a rebirth. And I don't think that heaven was the ultimate hope of the early Christians.
4)Perhaps. But this is the point of debate amongst Christians is it not?

I would encourage you to read the book that I mentioned earlier. It either directly or roundly addresses many of the questions you have raised. I'll even send you a copy if you wish.

But it's not obvious, not to all of us.

There would appear to be significant theological differences then between you and Roman Catholicism Fanny ?

If my memory serves me right what I have outlined is more a Catholic take on these issues ?

Wh1stler · 26-03-2012 11:01pm

ISAW wrote: »

And this is where you fall out with Philosophy and theology 101
One cant do evil so that good may come out of it.

One can't? Then how can Lot be considered righteous when:

Genesis 19:

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

Lot offered up his daughters (who were married since there is a later reference to his two sons-in-law) to be raped.

He did this in an attempt to avert an evil. Was offering his married daughters to the angry mob any less evil?

ISAW wrote: »

so he didnt do it of his own free will. he was tricked.
It isnt rape then. Mens rea didnt exist.

No but 'women's rea' did.

Also from Genesis 19:

30 Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar. And he and his two daughters dwelt in a cave. 31 Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth. 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 33 So they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
34 It happened on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “Indeed I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve the lineage of our father.” 35 Then they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him, and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37 The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38 And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the people of Ammon to this day.

Rape and incest but no wrath of God.

ISAW wrote: »

and you evidence for that is?

God protected the descendants of Lot.

Deuteronomy 2:

8 “And when we passed beyond our brethren, the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir, away from the road of the plain, away from Elath and Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the Wilderness of Moab. 9 Then the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”

and:

16 “So it was, when all the men of war had finally perished from among the people, 17 that the Lord spoke to me, saying: 18 ‘This day you are to cross over at Ar, the boundary of Moab. 19 And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”

ISAW wrote: »

im not aware of God ordering "hack the children to death"

1 Samuel 15:

Samuel also said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How do you suppose they were killed?

ISAW wrote: »

The apparent contradiction comes when God orders human beings to do things that we believe are objectively evil. Such seems to imply that evil is part of God's perfect will.

Yes and we all know the consequences of not carrying out God's orders to the letter.

ISAW wrote: »

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=130480
To some extent we can say that the Old Testament reflected the people of Israel's poor theological understanding, "it was for the hardness of your ancestors' hearts that Moses wrote this commandment".
Another answer is that comfortable Westerners don't have much sympathy with people living in the Middle East, fighting for very survival. When missiles are falling from the sky, y ou read these passages in a wholly different way.

Another answer is that the OT is largely mythologised history. We don't know what the actual history of the Exodus was, though it is likely that such an event did occur, and the Israelites had stories about it rather like Americans have Wild West movies which give a fictionalised account of a real event - the settlement of the American West - but with often unrealistic depictions of Indians and the settlers' relationships with them.
Reply With Quote

Perhaps. The thing is, if it rained bread when I was hungry and if Moses' staff brought forth water from out of the rock when I was thirsty; if God can put fiery serpents among us because we displease him then, knowing all this to be true, how stupid would I have to be to further invite the wrath of God.

ISAW wrote: »

how do you reply to "Islamic terrorists are claiming that they are doing God's will too"? How do I explain the difference between Israelites doing violence in God's name and Islamic terrorists doing violence in God's name to an atheist?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other?

Actually, I think that Palestine has a right to defend itself from an invasion. Don't forget that the Muslims are descendants of Abraham; Palestine is their promised land.

How can God take what is Abraham's to restore to Abraham?

One more thing; look at this excerpt:

Deuteronomy 22:

28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This quite plainly justifies rape as long as fifty shekels of silver are paid to her father and he marries her.

I wonder how many women have been raped so that they may be possessed.

I'm not saying that God ordered women to be raped but it seems that the greater sin is not paying the fifty shekels and not marrying her.

I would imagine that a raped and unmarried young woman would have had poor prospects in those times.

Fanny Cradock · 26-03-2012 11:03pm

That's probably why I'm not a Catholic

Still, along with the differences I also acknowledge the key similarities. In this regard I am beginning to gather a new respect for some Catholic theology, which I previously would have felt a distinct apathy towards simply by virtue of it being a work of Catholicism.

marienbad · 27-03-2012 12:12am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's probably why I'm not a Catholic

Still, along with the differences I also acknowledge the key similarities. In this regard I am beginning to gather a new respect for some Catholic theology, which I previously would have felt a distinct apathy towards simply by virtue of it being a work of Catholicism.

Well Fanny I recommend The Divine Comedy , all Catholic theology is there and truly inspirational even to an atheist like me. As a bonus it is divinely written-

Midway in the journey of our life I found myself in a dark wood,
for the straight way was lost. Ah, how hard it is to tell.....,

There the first terza rima , and great as The Inferno is, it is only a preparation for the inspirational Purgatorio and the truly sublime Paradiso, nothing quite like it in all of literature.

May I ask Fanny what denomination of christian are you ?

ISAW · 27-03-2012 12:24am

Wh1stler wrote: »

One can't? Then how can Lot be considered righteous when:

Genesis 19:

6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

Lot offered up his daughters (who were married since there is a later reference to his two sons-in-law) to be raped.

He did this in an attempt to avert an evil. Was offering his married daughters to the angry mob any less evil?

Not under gods orders. In fact it was more about hoispitality than sex. I prefer to think the Angels of the Lord were not made welcome by the people and that is what brought ruin on them. Although you could suggest the people wanted to rape the angels. None of this was ordered by god.

No but 'women's rea' did.

Mens as in mind -literally things of the mind - or if you prefer "malice of forethought"

Also from Genesis 19:

30 Then Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters were with him; ... and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 3

Rape and incest but no wrath of God.

Actually you should study your Bible./ Both the Moabites and ammonites suffered fr generations for this.

God protected the descendants of Lot.

Deuteronomy 2:

8 “And when we passed beyond our brethren, the descendants of Esau who dwell in Seir, away from the road of the plain, away from Elath and Ezion Geber, we turned and passed by way of the Wilderness of Moab. 9 Then the Lord said to me, ‘Do not harass Moab, nor contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”

and:

16 “So it was, when all the men of war had finally perished from among the people, 17 that the Lord spoke to me, saying: 18 ‘This day you are to cross over at Ar, the boundary of Moab. 19 And when you come near the people of Ammon, do not harass them or meddle with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the people of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the descendants of Lot as a possession.’”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab#Moabite-Israelite_relations
Some commentators advance the view that the story of Moab's incestuous conception found its way into the text as part of a political polemic of the time to denigrate Israelites' opponent and relegate the Moabites to a lesser status.
...
According to the Bible, the Moabites opposed the Israelite invasion of Canaan, as did the Ammonites. As a consequence, they were excluded from the congregation for ten generations The term "tenth generation" is considered an idiom used for an unlimited time as opposed to the third generation which allows an Egyptian convert to marry into the community

1 Samuel 15:

Samuel also said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

How do you suppose they were killed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Ethical_issues
Maimonides explains that the commandment of killing out the nation of Amalek requires the Jewish people to peacefully request of them to accept upon themselves the Noachide laws and pay a tax to the Jewish kingdom. Only if they refuse must they be physically killed.

Some commentators, such as Rabbi Hayim Palaggi (1788–1869) argued that Jews had lost the tradition of distinguishing Amalekites from other people, and therefore the commandment of killing them could not practically be applied ("...We can rely on the maxim that in ancient times, Sennacherib confused the lineage of many nations." [Eynei Kol Ḥai, 73, on Sanhedrin 96b])

Samuel's words to Agag: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (Samuel 1:15:33) were quoted by Israeli President Itzhak Ben-Zvi in his handwriting in response to a telegram sent by Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann's wife pleading for clemency after he was taken to Israel and sentenced to deat
Yes and we all know the consequences of not carrying out God's orders to the letter.

Deuteronomy 22:

28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This quite plainly justifies rape as long as fifty shekels of silver are paid to her father and he marries her.

No it doesnt. We have been over this before!
That is consensual sex.
You didnt read the verses just before that about if the woman does not consent.

then the man is executed and the woman goes free.

Wh1stler · 27-03-2012 4:20am

ISAW wrote: »

Not under gods orders. In fact it was more about hoispitality than sex. I prefer to think the Angels of the Lord were not made welcome by the people and that is what brought ruin on them. Although you could suggest the people wanted to rape the angels. None of this was ordered by god.

I don't have to suggest that the angry mob wanted to rape the angels as Genesis 19: 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

appears to suggest exactly that. (And yes, I know what 'carnally' means.)

And as a response to this, Lot says: '8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish;'

"You may do to them as you wish"? We're talking about the Sodomites! Lot offered his betrothed daughters in an attempt to appease a murderous mob.

I don't think you should ever go into the hospitality industry.

I didn't say that God ordered this; I asked you how Lot could be considered righteous after doing such a thing. It was you who said 'One cant do evil so that good may come out of it.'

ISAW wrote: »

Mens as in mind -literally things of the mind - or if you prefer "malice of forethought"

Yes ISAW, I know. It was an attempt at humour. The point is that Lot was raped twice by his daughters. And Abraham did commit adultery with Hagar.

Rape and incest but no wrath of God.

ISAW wrote: »

Actually you should study your Bible./ Both the
Moabites and ammonites suffered fr generations for this.

No, you should. Incest is not the reason they were excluded from the congregation.

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab#Moabite-Israelite_relations
Some commentators advance the view that the story of Moab's incestuous conception found its way into the text as part of a political polemic of the time to denigrate Israelites' opponent and relegate the Moabites to a lesser status.
...
According to the Bible, the Moabites opposed the Israelite invasion of Canaan, as did the Ammonites. As a consequence, they were excluded from the congregation for ten generations The term "tenth generation" is considered an idiom used for an unlimited time as opposed to the third generation which allows an Egyptian convert to marry into the community

This had nothing to do with incest.

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek#Ethical_issues
Maimonides explains that the commandment of killing out the nation of Amalek requires the Jewish people to peacefully request of them to accept upon themselves the Noachide laws and pay a tax to the Jewish kingdom. Only if they refuse must they be physically killed.

Some commentators, such as Rabbi Hayim Palaggi (1788–1869) argued that Jews had lost the tradition of distinguishing Amalekites from other people, and therefore the commandment of killing them could not practically be applied ("...We can rely on the maxim that in ancient times, Sennacherib confused the lineage of many nations." [Eynei Kol Ḥai, 73, on Sanhedrin 96b])

So God, through Samuel, charged Saul with an impossible task?

3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Maybe God wasn't speaking through Samuel after all.

ISAW wrote: »

Samuel's words to Agag: "As your sword bereaved women, so will your mother be bereaved among women." (Samuel 1:15:33) were quoted by Israeli President Itzhak Ben-Zvi in his handwriting in response to a telegram sent by Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann's wife pleading for clemency after he was taken to Israel and sentenced to deat
Yes and we all know the consequences of not carrying out God's orders to the letter.

Then Samuel deserved the same fate.

ISAW wrote: »

No it doesnt. We have been over this before!
That is consensual sex.
You didnt read the verses just before that about if the woman does not consent.

then the man is executed and the woman goes free.

No, it is not rape that is considered sin but adultery.

If a man rapes a betrothed women in the country, he dies. If he rapes a betrothed woman in the city they both die. But if he rapes a virgin that is not betrothed then he gets to marry her.

It is clear from Deuteronomy that adultery is the sin that brings death, not rape.

Wh1stler · 27-03-2012 4:28am

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong becaus it says "blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven." not "kill them all".

And yet there they are, immortalised in the pages of the Bible.

God must be hopping mad at the authors.

philologos · 27-03-2012 7:00am

Wh1stler: You may want to read the rest of Deuteronomy 22 and also read Exodus 21 in respect to that topic. Will come back with more detail later. Also, the passage that you cited does not refer to rape explicitly, we need to stop making assumptions unless this is crystal clear in the passage.

ISAW · 27-03-2012 1:17pm

Wh1stler wrote: »

I don't have to suggest that the angry mob wanted to rape the angels as Genesis 19: 4 Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”

appears to suggest exactly that. (And yes, I know what 'carnally' means.)

Yes but
1. Not ordered by God
2. while mens rea existed actus rei didnt -ther was no crime i.e "intending to rape" and rape are different things.

[/quote]
And as a response to this, Lot says: '8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish;'

"You may do to them as you wish"? We're talking about the Sodomites! Lot offered his betrothed daughters in an attempt to appease a murderous mob.
[/quote]

Yes but
1. "sodomites" is used as a word for sodomy because of this non event of raping males.
I dont think it is necessarily associated with homosexuality

2. The story relates that people should respect guests.

3. The offering of his daughters was not done on Gods orders.

I don't think you should ever go into the hospitality industry.

I have some very attractive friends who work in the adult hospitality industry. I dont think I could do what they do.

I didn't say that God ordered this; I asked you how Lot could be considered righteous after doing such a thing. It was you who said 'One cant do evil so that good may come out of it.'

I didnt say he was rightrous . He might be though. But God tells his uncle Abraham to kill his son Isaac and he stops him from doing it at the last moment. Maybe Lot was testing them?

Yes ISAW, I know. It was an attempt at humour. The point is that Lot was raped twice by his daughters. And Abraham did commit adultery with Hagar.

Genesis 16:3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
Not rape.
Consentual.

Rape and incest but no wrath of God.

well the consequences was the entire Islamic religion!
But as regards legal penalties - this was before Moses and leviticus; You cant enforce retroactive penal laws.

No, you should. Incest is not the reason they were excluded from the congregation.

Nor today is it mentioned that the origin of Ishmaelites and Israelites is a contributing factor to their current problems.

This had nothing to do with incest.

Fair enough I wont claim the origin is the cause. the later generation it seems are however punished for the sins of their antecedents.

So God, through Samuel, charged Saul with an impossible task?

3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
http://bible.org/seriespage/saul-and-amalekites-1-samuel-151-35

The primary reason stated above is that these peoples are exceedingly wicked. If they are not totally wiped out, they will teach the Israelites their sinful ways and thus bring them under divine condemnation. It is easy to see why all the fighting men of the enemy should be killed, but why the women, children, and cattle? The sin of the Canaanites involved had defiled and corrupted their animals, and God would not allow any to survive.
Secondly, those whom God orders annihilated are those who are guilty, those for whom their punishment is just retribution. While their predecessors may have sinned greatly, the people whom God orders Saul to destroy are guilty sinners themselves, for whom their fate is a just recompense:
Third, we are reminded that God does not take pleasure in the punishment of the innocent:
Fourth, the annihilation of the Amalekites in Saul’s day is the outworking of a command given many years earlier and reiterated several times.
Balak seeks to entice Balaam to “curse” Israel, the people whom God has blessed. Not only does Balaam bless Israel, he reiterates the curse on the Amalekites, pronounced earlier in Exodus 17. In addition to cursing the Amalekites, he blesses the Kenites, who had shown mercy to the Israelites (Numbers 24:21; see 1 Samuel 15:6). In spite of himself, Balaam must bless those whom God blesses (including those who bless Israel), and he must curse those whom God curses (those who curse Israel).

No, it is not rape that is considered sin but adultery.

If a man rapes a betrothed women in the country, he dies. If he rapes a betrothed woman in the city they both die. But if he rapes a virgin that is not betrothed then he gets to marry her.

It is clear from Deuteronomy that adultery is the sin that brings death, not rape.

What is clear is God dos not condone rape in the bible or anywhere else.
the fact that god also opposes other sins is beside the point.

tommy2bad · 27-03-2012 4:47pm

Sorry ISAW but you have just coincides the point, God ordered the murder of innocent babies.
Just because someone says that knew that they were guilty doesn't make it right. No infant or suckling child is guilty of anything let alone a crime that demands capital punishment.

The sin of the Canaanites involved had defiled and corrupted their animals, and God would not allow any to survive.
Secondly, those whom God orders annihilated are those who are guilty, those for whom their punishment is just retribution. While their predecessors may have sinned greatly, the people whom God orders Saul to destroy are guilty sinners themselves, for whom their fate is a just recompense:

Burning the temples of this god and the distruction of his priests is just not some bascwards retribution on the decendants of a tribe that your tribe dont like. Talk about revenge and fueds lasting generations, god here is a bastard.

Penn · 27-03-2012 4:53pm

ISAW wrote: »

Genesis 16:3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife.
Not rape.
Consentual.

Doesn't sound like she had much say in the matter. A husband can rape his wife y'know.

But let me guess, that was okay back then, wasn't it? Or do you think that rape is always wrong?

ISAW · 27-03-2012 6:04pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sorry ISAW but you have just coincides the point, God ordered the murder of innocent babies.

No Im not commenting on that I commenting on rape.
And noone is innocent.

Just because someone says that knew that they were guilty doesn't make it right. No infant or suckling child is guilty of anything let alone a crime that demands capital punishment.

so you are suddenly against abortion now?

Burning the temples of this god and the distruction of his priests is just not some bascwards retribution on the decendants of a tribe that your tribe dont like. Talk about revenge and fueds lasting generations, god here is a bastard.

Like PDN i have problems with some violence in the Old Testament. a fundamentalist literal interpretation as you are making does not depict what Christians would view as the christian God. Ill admit that. But it still does not show god ordering rape which is my point.

ISAW · 27-03-2012 6:07pm

Penn wrote: »

Doesn't sound like she had much say in the matter. A husband can rape his wife y'know.

By todays laws. and only when consent isnt present.

But let me guess, that was okay back then, wasn't it? Or do you think that rape is always wrong?

No the rape with marriage thing is quite recent isnt it? i mean like the last few decades?

i think it is always wrong but what i think isnt at issue.
What is a t issue is 1 whether god ordered rape or 2.viewed rape as wrong.
1 God didnt
2 God did.

Penn · 27-03-2012 7:10pm

ISAW wrote: »

By todays laws. and only when consent isnt present.

No the rape with marriage thing is quite recent isnt it? i mean like the last few decades?

i think it is always wrong but what i think isnt at issue.
What is a t issue is 1 whether god ordered rape or 2.viewed rape as wrong.
1 God didnt
2 God did.

Well, surely God would either consider rape to always be wrong or not, regardless of when any actual laws were introduced. Rape within marriage.... is rape.

So if Abram did rape Hagar, regardless of whether or not they were married, wouldn't that be wrong?

Delirium · 27-03-2012 7:30pm

ISAW wrote: »

so you are suddenly against abortion now?

Sorry, ISAW, but could you expand on this? Where in the world has an unborn child been tried for a crime, found guilty and executed (i.e. aborted) by the state?

Just trying to understand why you responded with the abortion question with regards to a comment on capital punishment.

ISAW · 27-03-2012 7:52pm

Penn wrote: »

Well, surely God would either consider rape to always be wrong or not, regardless of when any actual laws were introduced. Rape within marriage.... is rape.

Not legally not 20 years ago.
It would not have been illegal.
It wuld have been wrong because dispiute whta the law says ther is an overarching natural law which says it is always wrong. even if the law of the land doesnt.

Ads for "Doesn't sound like she had much say in the matter." The jewish law of that time was clear. You should not have sex if you are not married or going to get married. Even if that person is a slave.

So if Abram did rape Hagar, regardless of whether or not they were married, wouldn't that be wrong?

Yes it would -based on the idea that rape is always wrong. - But he didnt.

PDN · 27-03-2012 7:55pm

Penn wrote: »

Doesn't sound like she had much say in the matter.

Doesn't give us that information one way or another - but obviously that is no problem for anyone determined enough to construct a specious argument from silence.

ISAW · 27-03-2012 7:59pm

koth wrote: »

Sorry, ISAW, but could you expand on this? Where in the world has an unborn child been tried for a crime, found guilty and executed (i.e. aborted) by the state?

The point I addressed was the claim that "God ordered the murder of innocent babies." and that this was wrong. God does not order abortion and i found it odd mu interlocutor was making this point about innocents being killed or you may prefer "terminated".

Just trying to understand why you responded with the abortion question with regards to a comment on capital punishment.

it was not a comment on capital punishment. It was a coloured comment "God ordered the murder of innocent babies.
Just because someone says that knew that they were guilty doesn't make it right. No infant or suckling child is guilty of anything let alone a crime that demands capital punishment."

If the comment was saying that innocent children should not be killed then I assumed this applies to unborn innocent children as well.

tommy2bad · 27-03-2012 8:05pm

ISAW wrote: »

No Im not commenting on that I commenting on rape.
And noone is innocent.

so you are suddenly against abortion now?

Like PDN i have problems with some violence in the Old Testament. a fundamentalist literal interpretation as you are making does not depict what Christians would view as the christian God. Ill admit that. But it still does not show god ordering rape which is my point.

none are innocent is a charter for anything, what next thought crime, oh yeah that is is one of them.:rolleyes:
Was I in favor of abortion?
So what if He never ordered rape? btw is rape now the worst thing you can do, genocide a poor second and common murder just like theft. Whare dose abortion come in, in this list of 'do nots'?

Penn · 27-03-2012 8:10pm

PDN wrote: »

Penn wrote: »

Doesn't sound like she had much say in the matter.

Doesn't give us that information one way or another - but obviously that is no problem for anyone determined enough to construct a specious argument from silence.

Agreed. Good thing I never said he did rape her. Boy would I look like an idiot if I had!

What I was trying to do was use a hypothetical to demonstrate that, "legal at the time or not", rape is always rape. Maybe not a crime, but always morally wrong.

Fanny Cradock · 27-03-2012 8:31pm

Penn wrote: »

[...] but always morally wrong.

I agree. But them that leads up to the inevitable question. From whence do you derive your "ought"?

Penn · 27-03-2012 10:10pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree. But them that leads up to the inevitable question. From whence do you derive your "ought"?

From ourselves. From the examples of others. From society.

I'm not saying religion didn't help to give people morals or that believing in God and living in accordance with how you think he wants you to live didn't go a long way to spread morality... I'm saying that religion didn't invent morality, nor does it monopolise it. Thousands of years ago, stealing and murder etc were sometimes things people had to do in order to survive. Doesn't make it morally right, but it was what they had to do.

When you're a child, you get morality from your parents. As you get older, you learn about society's laws and learn more about the reasons behind them. Then when you're an adult, you learn to judge morality for yourself. Religion doesn't need to come into it at all. Some religious people do bad things. Some non-religious people do bad things. People will still do bad things when they know it's wrong.

I don't follow religion. However, most of what I consider to be immoral and what religion considers to be immoral are the same, and would be the same as most people regardless of religion. Do you not kill people because it's against your religion, or do you just think it's wrong anyway? Without religion in my life, if you took jail or any other type of punishment out of the equation, I would still think it wrong to kill another person. I would still think it wrong to steal from someone.

People have morailty, on different levels as it is something which is subjective.
People do not have "Morality™" (Morality™ is a registered trademark of Religion. All rights reserved.)

tommy2bad · 27-03-2012 10:19pm

Penn, thats what I'v been saying all along. Religion is about a relationship with God, morals are just common human decency. If we confuse the two, religion becomes a set of manners and morality becomes an imposition rather than an opportunity.

philologos · 28-03-2012 7:01am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Penn, thats what I'v been saying all along. Religion is about a relationship with God, morals are just common human decency. If we confuse the two, religion becomes a set of manners and morality becomes an imposition rather than an opportunity.

I couldn't disagree more on the basis of what I said a few pages ago.

God is the one who determines what is moral and what is immoral. Ultimately it gets a little slippery the more and more people try to deny that much. I.E that morality is relative and so on.

"From ourselves" as Penn just wrote, is a problem. If it is "from ourselves". Who the heck are you to tell me that I am wrong to go fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime if that is why I feel is right to do? Why is your moral authority of any more weight than mine is?

Questions like these, make the "relative morality" expoused by many crash and burn. It's not a logical position in the slightest.

Morality is a duty, it is our responsibility, one could easily say that it is imposed.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments