nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Peregrinus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As they say in mathematics Quad Erat Demonstrandum

Only if you assume that every time the bible describes rape, or every time the bible describes any individual condoning rape, that is the same thing as the bible condoning rape.

On the other hand, if your reading comprehension is a little bit above this level, the proof doesn't seem quite so convincing.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

It actually doesn't say that. I've responded to false claims about that passage at least five times on boards.ie now. Please read this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82000516

What is 22:28-29 saying?

FISMA

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I have demonstrated it repeatedly.

Brian,
I am afraid you have done no such thing and I invite you to step my through your logical process with me, in this thread.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

A universe governed by physical laws cannot exist with a being which is omnipotent.

Are you saying that God violates a particular Law of Physics, or all of them?

So for example, because of Ohm's Law, God cannot exist?

Why is "A universe governed by physical laws" mutually exclusive "with a being which is omnipotent."

Can you prove this? Demonstrate this?

Masteroid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you assume that every time the bible describes rape, or every time the bible describes any individual condoning rape, that is the same thing as the bible condoning rape.

On the other hand, if your reading comprehension is a little bit above this level, the proof doesn't seem quite so convincing.

You could try a little of that yourself.

The bible doesn't describe rape, it prescribes it.

Lot, the only man in Sodom worth saving, offers his betrothed daughters to be raped by the crowd as a solution to their hostility.

The leaders of God's chosen people prescribe murder, kidnap and rape as a solution to the Benjamite problem.

Moses, God's chosen representative to the Jews, prescribes murder and rape as revenge.

And God prescribes murder, rape and something that looks a lot like child abuse as a punishment for not being Jewish.

The bible doesn't just condone rape, it demands it.

It's almost as if the bible was written by Satan himself in order to lead us into evil practices such as genocide, rape and paedophilia.

Masteroid

FISMA wrote: »

Are you saying that God violates a particular Law of Physics, or all of them??

A burning bush that is not consumed by the fire seems to violate some law of physics.

A staff turning into a snake seems to violate another.

Wouldn't there need to be a localised contradiction of gravity in order for Jesus to walk on water?

And what about when Jesus rebukes the wind? What natural physical force could overcome the physical laws that govern weather systems? Instantaneously calming a storm requires that the average pressure of the air in the entire region around Jesus be equalised very, very quickly. Not only that but a sudden change in pressure like this would have caused ear-drums to explode too.

And if you want a real story of how physics can be subverted by God, consider what it would take to immerse the entire surface of the planet beneath about eighteen feet of water.

And then dry out again after about a year.

According to the bible, God considers the laws of physics more as a general guide than an actual law.

Light emanating from Jesus' head in the transfiguration, dead men coming back to life.

Are you saying that there isn't an implied claim that God can bend natural law to His will?

This does seem to be the Catholic view too. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

205: "God calls Moses from the midst of a bush that burns without being consumed: "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob."9 God is the God of the fathers, the One who had called and guided the patriarchs in their wanderings. He is the faithful and compassionate God who remembers them and his promises; he comes to free their descendants from slavery. He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan."

Peregrinus

Masteroid wrote: »

You could try a little of that yourself.

The bible doesn't describe rape, it prescribes it.

Lot, the only man in Sodom worth saving, offers his betrothed daughters to be raped by the crowd as a solution to their hostility.

Yes, he does. But it can’t have escaped your attention that the story doesn’t present that as a good, desirable or even effective solution to the problem. If you read the story exercising even a basic degree of critical thinking, and ask yourself what role Lot’s offer of his daughters plays in the story, why it’s included, what it’s significance is, it’s pretty well impossible to arrive in good faith at the conclusion that the point is “rape = good”.

Masteroid wrote: »

The leaders of God's chosen people prescribe murder, kidnap and rape as a solution to the Benjamite problem.

They do. But I await your argument showing that the story presents this as a good thing.

Masteroid wrote: »

Moses, God's chosen representative to the Jews, prescribes murder and rape as revenge.

Indeed. But where is this presented as good? A fairly obvious reading of this cycle of war stories is that the message is “war is sh*tty”, precisely because of its dehumanising and debasing effect on everyone involved, even the supposed good guys. I struggle to believe that this reading has never occurred to you, so you must have some reason for having dismissed it. Are you going to share that reason with us?

Masteroid wrote: »

And God prescribes murder, rape and something that looks a lot like child abuse as a punishment for not being Jewish.

If you’re talking her about the Deut 20:10-14 quoted by Brian above, a careful reading of the text will show that the orders here are not given by God; they are given by the (nameless) Deuteronomist.

(And – although it’s hardly a justification – you’ll note that what the text suggests here is not rape, but slavery. Is this relevant? Only to this extent; to support his claim that the bible condones rape Brian finds he has to press into service texts which actually don't deal with rape, suggesting possibly that he can't find that many texts which do, and which can be used to support his claim.)

But, rape or slavery, I grant you that the text is certainly troubling. But it is either pretty stupid, or downright dishonest, to pretend that there is only one possible reading, which is that enslaving or raping your defeated enemy is what God wants. There’s ample writing on the “texts of terror”, as they’re called, which faces precisely this challenge and seeks to read the texts coherently with the wider scriptures as a warning, rather than a mandate.

Masteroid wrote: »

The bible doesn't just condone rape, it demands it.

It's almost as if the bible was written by Satan himself in order to lead us into evil practices such as genocide, rape and paedophilia.

It is possible, I grant you, to read the bible (or at least parts of it) in this way, if you have your heart set on such a reading and are determined either not to admit the possibility of other readings, or to dismiss them. The question is, why would anyone approach reading the texts with such a determination?

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

What is 22:28-29 saying?

Nothing about rape.

Brian: I'm puzzled at why you have gone for Genesis 19, then Genesis 34 clearly points out that rape was a dishonourable thing. Genesis 19 doesn't even give advocacy for such an act being moral. In fact much as you find the incident with Judah and Tamar later on in Genesis, or Noah being drunk in Genesis 6, the point isn't that all of this is OK, but rather the point is that these are examples of what not to do. The Bible does this in many many places.

Quoting Deuteronomy 20 which has no mention of rape is ridiculous when the Hebrew law proscribes it in chapter 22 of the very same book.

Judges 20 doesn't advocate rape. In fact it comes directly after the whole of Israel went to war with the tribe of Benjamin because of a rape. That in and of itself shows that it was condemned in Israel.

None of the passages that you've cited "condone" rape.

It's really really disappointing to see that people go to www.evilbible.com like you have instead of engaging the topic by itself.

Your quotes are in exactly the same structure, and in exactly the same structure as on that site.

You claim to be a freethinker, yet you don't think for yourself when it comes to the Bible.

nagirrac

Masteroid wrote: »

He is the God who, from beyond space and time, can do this and wills to do it, the God who will put his almighty power to work for this plan."

Masteroid, if God exists outside space and time, surely he can do whatever he wants. He created space and time, so why would he be subject to the laws of nature that he put in place himself?

Think of it like an advanced World of Warcraft. The linear time involved for the characters in the game is irrelevant to the timeframe of the player, you can stop playing and return anytime to the same point, you can get killed and start over, whatever. There are few limitations for the player, and there are literally no limitations whatsoever for the designer.

The thing that ties us up in knots when thinking about these issues is time. Time is simply action, it is a motion event, the tick tock of a clock. The most fundamental thing we know of in our universe is electromagnetic radiation, light in its simplest form to us. A photon of light does not experience the passage of time nor the passage of distance. If a photon was emitted by a star 10 billion light years distant from our perspective and was 1) immediately reabsorbed or 2) travelled all the way to us, the photon would know no difference as it does not experience time.

If consciousness is based on biophoton based communication between cells (Fritz-Albert Popp) or a type of wireless communication within our brains and bodies, then our consciousness fundamentally does not experience time, and the passage of time we observe is just an illusion based on motion events. The whole key to understanding our true reality seems to be understanding that time as we observe it does not exist.

Worztron

Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

Christopher Hitchens: "It’s called faith because it’s not knowledge"

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

It actually doesn't say that. I've responded to false claims about that passage at least five times on boards.ie now. Please read this post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82000516

Hi - You clearly haven't read your own post that you linked above.

If you did, you'd see that you don't deal with the text of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

You just say that "it doesn't mention rape at all".

I'm not sure in what context "seizing" and "violating" might NOT be considered or interpreted as rape but perhaps there's a passage in the bible that explains that too??

Here are the relevant passages from various versions of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. You'll notice that the New International Version actually uses the word "rape".

New International Version

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

English Standard Version

8 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

New Revised Standard Version

28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.

philologos

The NIV is also the only translation which does this. I looked up a Hebrew concordance on this, and the word is seize or take hold of. I'll find the post that I made a few years ago on this.

Edit: I've actually posted twice on this. Apologies for the mobile links but you'll get what I'm saying.

Here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/67696113
And here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/59463100

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

The NIV is also the only translation which does this. I looked up a Hebrew concordance on this, and the word is seize or take hold of. I'll find the post that I made a few years ago on this.

Edit: I've actually posted twice on this. Apologies for the mobile links but you'll get what I'm saying.

Here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/67696113
And here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/59463100

I'm sorry but that doesn't answer why the most popular English translation of the bible opted for "rape".

You're claiming to be capable of a more reliable translation?

Should I favour your interpretation over theirs?

If they've chosen "rape", it's for equivalence.

I'd imagine they'd have a slight edge in terms of formal qualifications and credibility.

philologos

21 out of the 22 translations I consulted use seize. By the by, I'm not sure that the NIV is the most popular, and it's a paraphrase rather than a literal translation like ESV or NRSV.

Claiming that the NIV's translators are essentially more qualified than the translators of the overwhelming consensus is absurd.

Worztron

It is far more amazing for a supreme being (God) to appear from nothing than for a universe to have no creator.

Worztron

Christopher Hitchens: "Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene," and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

The NIV is also the only translation which does this. I looked up a Hebrew concordance on this, and the word is seize or take hold of. I'll find the post that I made a few years ago on this.

Edit: I've actually posted twice on this. Apologies for the mobile links but you'll get what I'm saying.

Here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/67696113
And here - http://touch.boards.ie/thread/post/59463100

So its ok for men to seize or take hold of women then? Leave the 'rape' translation out of it, what's your view on men 'seizing' or 'taking hold' of women ?

philologos

I may be crossing into a territory that the mods mightn't approve of but regular sex generally involves someone taking hold of someone no?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I may be crossing into a territory that the mods mightn't approve of but regular sex generally involves someone taking hold of someone no?

It depends on how you like it.

So what's your view on men taking hold of women? Suppose the women aren't consenting to being taken hold of, is it ok if its done the biblical way?

philologos

I don't think the passage is giving in depth coverage of the methodologies behind sex but I think it's safe to say that to take hold of one another isn't in any way a sinister act.

The law seems to be outlining the procedure under the Mosaic law for premarital sex. I.E that they should be married in this case.

Zombrex

Peregrinus wrote: »

Only if you assume that every time the bible describes rape, or every time the bible describes any individual condoning rape, that is the same thing as the bible condoning rape.

On the other hand, if your reading comprehension is a little bit above this level, the proof doesn't seem quite so convincing.

And the Bible never condones rape if you assume that everything that could be rape isn't.

Ultimately this discussion is pointless, since it is arguing about the word rather than the actions described in the Bible. So when Moses commands his followers to go take brides from the captured women (and put the rest to death), since the word "rape" is never used Christians all say But but it doesn't condone rape, "rape" is never mentioned, when everyone else knows that the odds that these women were consulted on their future is zero.

So while you can complain people aren't be honest about discussing these passages I would like to find anyone who is being honest discussing these things. Which is why this is ultimately pointless discussing this.

Anyone who thinks the Old Testament isn't condoning rape is being utterly totally dishonest. But since it requires honesty in reading these passages and understanding what they are saying, rather than the silly Show me the actual word nonsense if someone is going to be that dishonest it is pointless discussing it with them. Invoking Godwin's law, it is like discussing the holocaust with a neo-Nazi who keeps demanding to see the evidence that Hitler actually said the word "holocaust".

Benny_Cake

Worztron wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

Christopher Hitchens: "It’s called faith because it’s not knowledge"

Worztron wrote: »

Christopher Hitchens: "Let's say that the consensus is that our species, being the higher primates, Homo Sapiens, has been on the planet for at least 100,000 years, maybe more. Francis Collins says maybe 100,000. Richard Dawkins thinks maybe a quarter-of-a-million. I'll take 100,000. In order to be a Christian, you have to believe that for 98,000 years, our species suffered and died, most of its children dying in childbirth, most other people having a life expectancy of about 25 years, dying of their teeth. Famine, struggle, bitterness, war, suffering, misery, all of that for 98,000 years. Heaven watches this with complete indifference. And then 2000 years ago, thinks "That's enough of that. It's time to intervene," and the best way to do this would be by condemning someone to a human sacrifice somewhere in the less literate parts of the Middle East. Don't lets appeal to the Chinese, for example, where people can read and study evidence and have a civilization. Let's go to the desert and have another revelation there. This is nonsense. It can't be believed by a thinking person."

This is a discussion forum, please refrain from simply posting quotes by Christopher Hitchens without any accompanying opinion / statement of your own.

Sacksian

philologos wrote: »

21 out of the 22 translations I consulted use seize. By the by, I'm not sure that the NIV is the most popular, and it's a paraphrase rather than a literal translation like ESV or NRSV.

Claiming that the NIV's translators are essentially more qualified than the translators of the overwhelming consensus is absurd.

Could you please not misrepresent what I said?

I said: "the most popular English translation of the bible opted for 'rape'."

And that "if they've chosen "rape", it's for equivalence."

That's not claiming that "the NIV's translators are essentially more qualified than the translators of the overwhelming consensus"

It's saying that if they have chosen to substitute "rape" for "seizing"/"violating", it's because, in their professional opinion, it's an "equivalent" term.

Otherwise, it would be quite irresponsible (and probably blasphemous) to substitute "rape" for "seizing"/"violating".

Do you really not think professional translators and people who have been studying the bible for longer than you have been alive would have discussed this?

Other bibles do not conflict with the NIV translation. They simply use different words to convey the same idea.

For you to deny that they are equivalent terms is YOU saying that YOUR interpretation is superior to theirs.

It's a ludicrous position.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

21 out of the 22 translations I consulted use seize. By the by, I'm not sure that the NIV is the most popular, and it's a paraphrase rather than a literal translation like ESV or NRSV.

Claiming that the NIV's translators are essentially more qualified than the translators of the overwhelming consensus is absurd.

So you say seize does not imply rape? Were the previous lines merely talking about seized women too?

Peregrinus

Morbert wrote: »

So you say seize does not imply rape? Were the previous lines merely talking about seized women too?

I suspect it probably doesn’t imply rape in the sense that the woman’s consent is the issue.

The previous passage, Deut 22:23-27, dealing with the case of sex with a woman betrothed to someone else, attempts to differentiate between cases in which the woman appears to have consented, on the one hand (in which case both die) and cases where she did not or where it cannot be known whether she did or not on the other (in which case only the man dies).

Deut 22:28-29 deals with sex with a woman who is not betrothed, and the same consequences flow in all cases – i.e. consent is not an issue. Thus while the rule would apply to cases of rape, it would apply also to cases which were certainly not rape. If consent or the lack of it were an issue, that would be made clear, as it is in the immediately preceding passage. So, while the rule covers cases of rape, it’s not directed at cases of rape. I suspect “seize” (or the Hebrew word translated as “seize” here) basically means “take”, and it reflects a sexist assumption that an act of intercourse is normatively initiated by the man.

A modern analogy would be our laws concerned sex with a person under 17 (“unlawful carnal knowledge”). Consent is not an issue. The rule is the same whether the young person is actually raped, or whether he or she is an enthusiastic participant, or something in between. The maximum penalty for u.c.k. is less than the penalty for rape, but nobody objects that having a law against u.c.k. “condones rape”. (Of course, if a young person is raped, then the perpetrator can be charged both with u.c.k. and with rape, but that just illustrates that u.c.k. is not the same as rape.)

I also don’t think it’s fair to say that the rule in Deut 22:27-28 “condones” anything, whether it be sex with an unbetrothed woman, or rape. It takes its place in a long list of rules which prescribe penalties and consequences for acts which are clearly not condoned; if they were condoned, they wouldn’t attract penalties. You might object that it fails to treat the act as seriously as it should, or that it is sexist in its operation, or whatever, but imposing penalties on the perpetrator of an act is pretty much the opposite of condoning it.

philologos

What standard for 'most popular' are you using.

The other translations do not use rape. Strong's concordance offers seize or take hold of which is entirely different.

It's not about my interpretation. Its that 21 out of the 22 I looked at don't agree. You can't assume that they say the same thing when different words with different connotations are used.

The other translations do not refer to rape at all.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

What standard for 'most popular' are you using.

The other translations do not use rape. Strong's concordance offers seize or take hold of which is entirely different.

It's not about my interpretation. Its that 21 out of the 22 I looked at don't agree. You can't assume that they say the same thing when different words with different connotations are used.

The other translations do not refer to rape at all.

What happened to the women who were seized or taken hold of? Was it something they consented to? I'd like an honest answer.

philologos

I don't think that the author of Deuteronomy is primarily concerned with the method. It's primarily about cases of premarital sex among the Israelites and how that was handled.

It's concerned both with sex violating betrothal and sex before marriage.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

And the Bible never condones rape if you assume that everything that could be rape isn't.

Nonsense. This is basic reading comprehension. If you have no grounds in the passage to claim that it is about rape you don't assume it in.

The basic rules of reading comprehension are the rules of basic Bible handling. The sanw criteria that I use in assessing pretty much any book are the same rules that I apply to Bible reading.

Ultimately this discussion is pointless, since it is arguing about the word rather than the actions described in the Bible. So when Moses commands his followers to go take brides from the captured women (and put the rest to death), since the word "rape" is never used Christians all say But but it doesn't condone rape, "rape" is never mentioned, when everyone else knows that the odds that these women were consulted on their future is zero.

It's only pointless if people insist on imagining things into passages that just aren't there.

So while you can complain people aren't be honest about discussing these passages I would like to find anyone who is being honest discussing these things. Which is why this is ultimately pointless discussing this.

We are honestly discussing this with you.

Anyone who thinks the Old Testament isn't condoning rape is being utterly totally dishonest. But since it requires honesty in reading these passages and understanding what they are saying, rather than the silly Show me the actual word nonsense if someone is going to be that dishonest it is pointless discussing it with them. Invoking Godwin's law, it is like discussing the holocaust with a neo-Nazi who keeps demanding to see the evidence that Hitler actually said the word "holocaust".

It's not exclusively about the terms that are used it's also about what is communicated in the passage.

The fact is that every single mention of rape in the Old Testament discourages it. I've cited passages at length that communicate this.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I don't think that the author of Deuteronomy is primarily concerned with the method. It's primarily about cases of premarital sex among the Israelites and how that was handled.

It's concerned both with sex violating betrothal and sex before marriage.

????
That's a disappointing answer.
Is this like slavery and the submission of women, where if the women are seized 'properly, its OK?
You said the passage didn't refer to rape but rather 'seizing' or 'taking hold of', yet you now refer to sex. Which, if you were seized hold of without your consent would lead to rape, would it not?

philologos

lazygal: I'll give you the answer I see fit. I don't promise that you'll agree with what I say or that you will like my answer but genuinely I'm trying as best as I can to answer.

Being an atheist doesn't give you the right to be rude. Genuinely I'd rather if we had a proper discussion without this childish attitude. There's no point in discussing if you genuinely aren't interested in listening.

The passage doesn't speak about rape. It deals with premarital sex. Therefore I don't magically assume rape in there as that's bad reading irrespective of what I'm reading if I don't have sufficient license from the author I don't imagine stuff in that's simply not there.