Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad wrote: »

would they be classed as forced sexual act by today's standards ?

Nothing in any of the passages you've cited speak of any forced sexual act by any standard.

It's just bad reading to assume rape into a passage where it isn't mentioned at all.

That's why for years we've claimed that Zombrex is being dishonest when he trots this out.

robp

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But the difference between physics and religion is that under physics nothing existed before time started (ignore nagirrac his physics is prouchy at best), whereas under religion god existed before time started.

So you've a big difference there, religion maintaining that a thing (god) existed in a "period" (for want of a better word) where nothing could exist, whereas physics rightly points out that before the big bang there was nothing for anything to exist in.

And again we've another example of having to decide between having a universe with god or one with fundamental principles of physics. And again we see which one has evidence and which one is make-believe.

nagirrac has gone over more clearly than me in his last post that there is more than time. Another key aspect is that in physics we can not show there was nothing, and there is no evidence of nothing despite the title of Krauss's book. By your definition of evidence the proof of nothing is 'make-believe'. As the evidence does lead one to suppose there was nothing.

Worztron

nagirrac wrote: »

According to our physical laws the universe cannot come from nothing in a material sense (energy and matter), unless you redefine nothing as some cosmologists have done and argue that the quantum vacuum is nothing. Krauss' book on this subject is a proposal of how the universe went from one state to another, and provides no answer as to where the quantum vacuum came from or where the material that banged into exitance at the time of the big bang came from.

There are many possibilities. Our universe could be a subset of a much larger multiverse that has nothing like the laws of our universe, there could be a nearby universe that gave rise to our universe, this could be a recurring universe, a very smart entity in another universe could have programmed our universe. I suppose we could call the latter God compared to us.

Mystics do not say or believe that God came from nothing. They say that linear time as we experience it is the incorrect way to think about this question. According to their beliefs, God exists in eternity, which does not mean time that goes on forever, it means there is no time.

Since nobody knows for certain where the universe came from -- it is best to leave a question mark there and not clutch onto adult fairy tales. There is nothing wrong in not knowing the answer to everything but it is madness to believe in things that are not falsifiable in order to fill in the gaps.

philologos wrote: »

Nothing in any of the passages you've cited speak of any forced sexual act by any standard.

It's just bad reading to assume rape into a passage where it isn't mentioned at all.

That's why for years we've claimed that Zombrex is being dishonest when he trots this out.

We are not reading rape into the passage, per we. We are looking at the reality of the situation.

These woman have been forcably taken, whilst we may allow that some of them are ok with that, it must be the case that for at least some of them this taking is against their will.

These women are then "married" to the men that took them. From my reading of christian objections to gay marriage I know that sex that can result in pregnancy is, apparently, a key requirement of marriage. We can then, therefore, assume that these soldier will have sex with the woman they have taken. Where they have been taken against their will I think it is reasonable to assume any sex acts carried out on them is also against their will. Therefore, they have been raped.

Whilst the fact that it does not specifically mention rape might help you rationalise the fact that your god's behaviour does not tally with what you believe he is, it is quite apparent that you are ignoring the reality of the situation these women were in.

They were raped and you god told the rapists that it was ok.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

We are not reading rape into the passage, per we. We are looking at the reality of the situation.

These woman have been forcably taken, whilst we may allow that some of them are ok with that, it must be the case that for at least some of them this taking is against their will.

These women are then "married" to the men that took them. From my reading of christian objections to gay marriage I know that sex that can result in pregnancy is, apparently, a key requirement of marriage. We can then, therefore, assume that these soldier will have sex with the woman they have taken. Where they have been taken against their will I think it is reasonable to assume any sex acts carried out on them is also against their will. Therefore, they have been raped.

Whilst the fact that it does not specifically mention rape might help you rationalise the fact that your god's behaviour does not tally with what you believe he is, it is quite apparent that you are ignoring the reality of the situation these women were in.

They were raped and you god told the rapists that it was ok.

MrP

That's not in the passage and you're assuming / imagining it in there without warrant. That's why we're dealing with dishonesty rather than an earnest effort to read what it is saying.

There's actually not even mention of the marriage even being forced. All we can read from it is that marriage between an Israelite and a captive woman is permissible in Torah law.

I suspect unless you're willing to concede that it is not mentioned there that we'll both go away with bloody foreheads.

That's our point.

philologos wrote: »

That's not in the passage and you're assuming / imagining it in there without warrant. That's why we're dealing with dishonesty rather than an earnest effort to read what it is saying.

There's actually not even mention of the marriage even being forced. All we can read from it is that marriage between an Israelite and a captive woman is permissible in Torah law.

I suspect unless you're willing to concede that it is not mentioned there that we'll both go away with bloody foreheads.

That's our point.

would it be acceptable by today's standard ?

marienbad wrote: »

would it be acceptable by today's standard ?

I've answered that question already and I've told you I won't be entertaining an interrogation session from you.

philologos wrote: »

I've answered that question already and I've told you I won't be entertaining an interrogation session from you.

You see Philogos this is where you lose any credibility and your assertions that you are helping spread the 'word' come across as insincere and dare I say it vain.

When ever the difficult questions come up you opt out. It is a straight question and a valid one - no interrogation involved . What are you afraid of ?

So would it be acceptable by todays's standards ?

philologos wrote: »

That's not in the passage and you're assuming / imagining it in there without warrant. That's why we're dealing with dishonesty rather than an earnest effort to read what it is saying.

There's actually not even mention of the marriage even being forced. All we can read from it is that marriage between an Israelite and a captive woman is permissible in Torah law.

I suspect unless you're willing to concede that it is not mentioned there that we'll both go away with bloody foreheads.

That's our point.

OK, you are accusing me of making assumptions yet you are assuming that a woman that has been captured, or taken against her will, will have consented to marriage and consented to sex just because it does not clarify exactly what happened?

MrP

I've already answered it. Not getting an answer you like, or an answer that convinces you isn't the same as not getting an answer at all.

Read post #6422

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, you are accusing me of making assumptions yet you are assuming that a woman that has been captured, or taken against her will, will have consented to marriage and consented to sex just because it does not clarify exactly what happened?

MrP

It doesn't say anything about rape, therefore I don't assume it.

It doesn't say anything about the marriage being forced, therefore I don't assume it.

Not assuming things without warrant is basic reading comprehension.

philologos wrote: »

I've already answered it. Not getting an answer you like, or an answer that convinces you isn't the same as not getting an answer at all.

Read post #6422

Rubbish - that is not an answer. My question is - would it be acceptable ny todays standards . What is so hard about that ?

http://globaljusticeinitiative.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/archbishop-tutu-condemns-under-18-marriage/

robp

Worztron wrote: »

Since nobody knows for certain where the universe came from -- it is best to leave a question mark there and not clutch onto adult fairy tales. There is nothing wrong in not knowing the answer to everything but it is madness to believe in things that are not falsifiable in order to fill in the gaps.

Christianity is not an attempt to 'fill in the gaps', as quite clearly it can't fill in the gaps out our knowledge of the universe. Christianity is a response to the 'why' of human existence which is a completely different realm altogether. Referring to 'fairy tales' or as Christians as non-thinking people doesn't reflect very well on someone who trying to take the moral high ground.

philologos wrote: »

It doesn't say anything about rape, therefore I don't assume it.

It doesn't say anything about the marriage being forced, therefore I don't assume it.

Not assuming things without warrant is basic reading comprehension.

They are not assumed without warrant. Where a woman is taken against her will it is highly unlikely that she would consent to marriage and consent to sex with her captor.

To suggest that because there is no mention of forced marriage or rape, where a woman has been abducted, offends not only comprehension but also logic and common sense.

MrP

Considering that rape is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Torah and in the Old Testament is offends logic and comprehension to claim that somehow the Bible advocates rape here when it isn't mentioned.

That's the crux of the issue.

philologos wrote: »

Considering that rape is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Torah and in the Old Testament is offends logic and comprehension to claim that somehow the Bible advocates rape here when it isn't mentioned.

That's the crux of the issue.

Excuse me ! I am not asking you about rape . Yet again I am asking you would this practice be acceptable by todays standards ?

and an illustration in case you still don't understand

philologos wrote: »

Considering that rape is clearly condemned elsewhere in the Torah and in the Old Testament is offends logic and comprehension to claim that somehow the Bible advocates rape here when it isn't mentioned.

That's the crux of the issue.

Mere sophistry. This has been pointed our to you before, several times. Even if we allow that the bible condemns rape elsewhere, it is quite clear that the captured woman were undoubtedly raped, in the sense that we would consider it to be rape. Now, perhaps the men that wrote the bible did not consider it to be rape, spoils of war and all that. So, if they did not consider it to be rape, or in fact consider it even worth mentioning, then of course there would be no condemnation of it. So what we have in the bible is a scenario where a woman is taken against to her, she is married to the soldier that has taken her against her will, this is likely to be an unwanted marriage, on the part of the woman, as she did not want to be taken. Part of marriage is sex. It is likely that the woman did not want to have sex with the person that abducted her, so sex in these circumstances would be rape. The fact that the writers of the bible did not think this was rape is not relevant to whether us looking at it can call it what it is. Rape. And rape condoned by the writers of the bible. I am happy with that, to be honest. I think the bible is just a book written by a bunch of bigoted, misogynistic, racist nasty people. So for me this makes sense. They did not consider it rape to have sex with a woman taken as spoils of war. So why on earth would they condemn it?

You don't, however, have that luxury. You believe this is the inspired word of god and because your inspired word of god is quite plainly condoning what we consider to be rape you have a problem. You can either say that rape was ok then or you can weasel around saying, "well it doesn't actually mention rape" knowing that this is not in any way realistic.

I love law. And one of the things I love about law is that is doesn't care about the words used. It looks at the actions and the intent. If a man has sex with a woman and he knows, or should reasonably know, that she does not consent to that sex, then it is rape.

Perhaps it would be better for you to argue that rape was ok back then, but now it is not ok... That is a more honest argument, but I realise that, whilst it might be a reasonable explanation for someone that does not believe in your god, it may cause you more problems than it solves. So your are left trying to explain the behaviour of a god that does not quite fit with what you want him to be.

MrP

marienbad wrote: »

Excuse me ! I am not asking you about rape . Yet again I am asking you would this practice be acceptable by todays standards ?

and an illustration in case you still don't understand

I think you are reading too much into it. Perhaps they are blindfolded because they are not supposed to see the groom before their wedding day, and the heavily armed men are just there to make sure they don't bump into anything.

After all, I see not acts of forced marriage or rape in that picture and we would obviously be wrong to imply it.

MrP

How can rape be condoned if it isn't described or mentioned in these passages?

That's the main point and unless you can back it up there is no reason to assume that it is discussing rape or coercion.

There's nothing plain there at all.

philologos wrote: »

How can rape be condoned if it isn't described or mentioned in these passages?

That's the main point and unless you can back it up there is no reason to assume that it is discussing rape or coercion.

There's nothing plain there at all.

Is stem cell mentioned and do you have a view on it ?

philologos wrote: »

How can rape be condoned if it isn't described or mentioned in these passages?

That's the main point and unless you can back it up there is no reason to assume that it is discussing rape or coercion.

There's nothing plain there at all.

Forced marriage and subsequent rape is the natural consequence of what is described in those passages. Let me ask you a couple of questions that might help us tease things out.

1) Do you think a woman that has been abducted against her will (I appreciate that this is a bit of a tautology but I want to be sure everyone is talking about the same thing) is likely to consent or agree to marrying the person that abducted her? When I say consent, I mean real consent. Not that she agrees to it under duress, that is not consent.

2) Do you think that a woman that has been abducted and married against her will is likely to consent to sex with the person she has been married to against her will?

Your book describes a course of action that by any reasonable analysis will end in rape. It really is that simple.

MrP

Worztron

robp wrote: »

...Referring to 'fairy tales' or as Christians as non-thinking people doesn't reflect very well on someone who trying to take the moral high ground.

How does a "moral high ground" come into this?

Weathering

If u believe in god good for you. If you don't good for you. Don't try and force someone either way. "God" this debate is played out

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

According to our physical laws the universe cannot come from nothing in a material sense (energy and matter), unless you redefine nothing as some cosmologists have done and argue that the quantum vacuum is nothing. Krauss' book on this subject is a proposal of how the universe went from one state to another, and provides no answer as to where the quantum vacuum came from or where the material that banged into exitance at the time of the big bang came from.

If Hawking is correct, the structure of the quantum vacuum would not exist "within" space and time. Instead, it would generate space and time itself. It would not have a beginning or end any more than God would.

Zombrex

I would be interested in seeing an example of any society who's soldiers took captive women actually admitted that it was rape. In World War 2 the Japanese referred to them as "comfort women", not sex slaves. They only apologised in 1992. I wonder what the Christians here would make of that? Well the soldiers never called it rape. And sure didn't they have laws against rape.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Forced marriage and subsequent rape is the natural consequence of what is described in those passages. Let me ask you a couple of questions that might help us tease things out.

1) Do you think a woman that has been abducted against her will (I appreciate that this is a bit of a tautology but I want to be sure everyone is talking about the same thing) is likely to consent or agree to marrying the person that abducted her? When I say consent, I mean real consent. Not that she agrees to it under duress, that is not consent.

2) Do you think that a woman that has been abducted and married against her will is likely to consent to sex with the person she has been married to against her will?

Your book describes a course of action that by any reasonable analysis will end in rape. It really is that simple.

Actually, I don’t think it is that simple.

Remember how we got to this point. Somebody - I forget who, at this point - made the claim that the bible condones rape, and when that claim was challenged a number of people offered various scripture passages said to support the claim.

On examination, most of the passages which referred to rape proved not to condone it, and most of the passages which did condone something - possibly something quite nasty - weren’t really, or at any rate primarily, condoning rape.

On this particular passage, I think people would be on fairly strong ground if they complained that the bible condones forced marriage, or abduction for marriage. But they’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner where they have to attack this passage on the grounds that it condones rape. And that’s not quite so clear.

MrPudding wrote: »

1) Do you think a woman that has been abducted against her will . . . is likely to consent or agree to marrying the person that abducted her?

She may well, given that she doesn’t share our assumptions and values. Remember, this is a woman who never had any expectation of choosing her own marriage partner. Her marriage partner would be chosen by her father. Or, possibly, by her grandfather. Or, if her father was of low status, by her father’s patron, or some other high-status figure on whom her father was dependent. Or, if her father was a slave, by her father’s owner. And at any point the person in a position to choose her marriage partner might change - death, decline in fortune, war, etc. She’s essentially property (or, at any rate, the right to select her marriage partner is essentially property) and property can change hands at any time. When there’s a war, and her family’s on the losing side, and awful lot of things change, including expectations with regard to marriage.

At this point she might actually be quite glad to be married off, given that the alternatives include reduction to slavery, rape (in the conventional sense), slaughter, being taken as a wife by someone on the defeated side, or destitution and starvation. Being taken as a wife by someone who's in a position to give you a home and provide for your offspring's future, and who accepts a responsiblity to do so, is actually at the better end of the range of possibilities here. Even if she’s not happy about the marriage, she may well accept that is is up to her captor to make marriage decisions in respect of her. She may regard herself as unfortunate, but not wronged.

So, in this woman’s culture, in this woman’s society, in this woman’s circumstances, she wouldn’t necessarily consider herself wronged by being married in this fashion. Would she consent to the mariage? Well, she might not even ask herself the question; she wouldn’t see its relevance. But if you pressed her, she might well say “yes”, in the sense that she assents to the values and assumptions which give her captor the right to do this. And she might even say "yes" in the sense that she thinks this marriage is a better option, from her point of view, than the alternatives.

MrPudding wrote: »

2) Do you think that a woman that has been abducted and married against her will is likely to consent to sex with the person she has been married to against her will?

She might. Again, even if she were unhappy with the marriage, she could still see herself as married - that’s how marriages happen in her culture - and she could see sex as appropriate, and not something she would refuse. It may never have occurred to her that sexual intimacy was something that she was free to give or withhold according to her own inclinations. For her, whether sex is appropriate depends on her status, not on her preferences.

Semantically, we can defend the claim that she was raped, because this is a sequence of events which will likely lead to her having sex, and at no point is her consent necessarily sought or obtained (though it’s not necessarily withheld either). But the corollary is that every woman who ever married a husband not of her own choosing, every woman who has married out of economic or social necessity, was raped every time she has sex with her husband. And that’s the experience of most women who have ever lived, since the romantic idea of marriage in which two individuals choose one another out of romantic inclination is a fairly recent invention. And that’s such a broad definition of rape as to be not much use - and, more to the point, it’s not what we normally think of when we use the word “rape”.

So, does the bible condone rape? In this passage, yes, indirectly, for certain values of “rape”. But we have to do a good deal of shoehorning to get to that point, and in doing so we end up skipping over some much more fundamental moral issues. Possibly, just possibly, the central moral problem in what’s described here isn’t the acts of sex that are presumed to follow the forced marriage?

Peregrinus- no matter what the ancient interpretation you would you agree that by todays standards it would be a war crime and would be classed as rape ?

It was not even as 'civilised' as the rape of the Sabine Women where at least they were given a choice.

Peregrinus

marienbad wrote: »

Peregrinus- no matter what the ancient interpretation you would you agree that by todays standards it would be a war crime . . .

Yes. (Just to be clear, I'm talking here about Deut 20:10-14, and I think you are too.)

marienbad wrote: »

. . . and would be classed as rape ?

I think it's much more likely to be classed as abduction or ethnic cleansing, to be honest. I don't think there's any example, ancient or modern, of forcible marriages in these circumstances being classed for criminal purposes as rape, even by people who disapproved of them or denounced them. (If you know of an example, I'll be happy to consider it.)

My point here is not that this practice would be defensible; not at all. My point is that this conversation has all the hallmarks of one in which people start by denouncing the bible for condoning rape, and only looked for evidence when the assertion was challenged. Their initial belief was not evidence-based. And they don't find any very convincing evidence, which is why, after other passages initially cited have been quietly dropped, they have to rely on passages like this, which are the best they can do but, frankly, don't provide the kind of support that they expected and hoped to find.

If you started by reading the bible and forming opinions about what your read, you might well deplore this passage, but I suspect the focus of your denunciation would not be that it condones rape. In fact what this law does is prevent rape; if a conqueror desires a captive woman, he can't just have her; he has to marry her, tqke her into his home, allow her a period of mourning, give her a status, rights and a future. It's not great, perhaps, but it's better than what would happen if the law were not there.

Yes, marriage can itself be a rape, and for those senses of "rape", this passage condones rape. But, as for the primary sense of rape, as for the kind of rapes that to this day still happen to the women on the losing side in a war, this passage is clearly aimed at preventing those rapes, and I suggest it's less than honest for people who claim that the bible "condones rape" not to acknowledge this.