Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

You claimed the Bible advocated rape. I'm asking you to show me what you're basing that on.

That's fair and I won't accept nonsense accusations.

Valid ''accusations'', but to help you- the treatment of captive women

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Valid ''accusations'', but to help you- the treatment of captive women

Passages? If you want to discuss the Bible you should quote or reference where you're speaking of.

Otherwise it looks like you're just trying to find reasons to dismiss the Bible without honestly engaging with it.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Passages? If you want to discuss the Bible you should quote or reference where you're speaking of.

Otherwise it looks like you're just trying to find reasons to dismiss the Bible without honestly engaging with it.

Either put up or shut up and answer the question - you know full well the passages reffered to.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

Passages? If you want to discuss the Bible you should quote or reference where you're speaking of.

Otherwise it looks like you're just trying to find reasons to dismiss the Bible without honestly engaging with it.

I'd like a response to my request. Do you not know the scripture that condemns rape?

JimiTime

marienbad wrote: »

Either put up or shut up and answer the question - you know full well the passages reffered to.

You kidding me?? You say that the bible condones rape, and then don't refer to where this happens? Eh, I don't think its Phil that needs to put up just yet. Present your case for your accusation (Namely, that The Bible condones rape), and Phil said he'd deal with it. You either have the passages in mind, and you can provide them, or you are just parroting something you probably heard from someone. So yeah, put up or shut up;):)

Kiwi in IE

Will there ever be a time when, as a species, we can be honest with ourselves and admit that nobody knows what happens after we die, or why we are here, and stop referring to 2000 year old interpretations of particular events as 'answers' those questions?

nagirrac

Only if we evolve into androids

The rape discussion is silly. Atheists always point to the bad behavior described in the Old Testament as if it informs us what Jesus' teachings were. The Old Testament is a history of Judea and the surrounding region, where slaughters, taking captives, women as property was commonplace. The only real relevance to Christianity is what did Jesus say about these behaviors, if anything.

We shouldn't be too quick to condemn them as ancient savages either, given our own propensity as a species today for rape and pillage. The horrors of the last century and indeed much of what is going on today in terms of human trafficking, including child prostitution, make the ancients look quite civilized. Tackling human rights abuses today is the relevant discussion, not pointing fingers at those that lived 3,000 years ago. In general, the world would be a fairly decent place if people followed the teachings of Jesus and other spiritual teachers in a modern context.

PopePalpatine

JimiTime wrote: »

You kidding me?? You say that the bible condones rape, and then don't refer to where this happens?

Judges 21:10-24, New Living Translation wrote:

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Either put up or shut up and answer the question - you know full well the passages reffered to.

No, I'm honestly sorry, I'm not going to put up with this kind of nonsense.

You claimed something about the Bible, I have a right to ask you what you're talking about.

If you continue posting in this way I don't see what good can come from engaging with you. I'm more than happy to be reasonable and fair, but I'm perfectly entitled to ask you questions. This discussion is not an interrogation session, and I won't put up with it in that way.

You can have your discussion with someone else who is willing to engage with those tactics as I certainly won't be.

Being an atheist, or sceptical of the Bible doesn't give you a right to be rude to other people. Manners are obligatory if you want to have a constructive discussion.

philologos

PopePalpatine wrote: »

.

Can you point out where rape is mentioned in that passage?

Because as far as I can tell Genesis 34 strongly condemns rape, Deuteronomy 22 showed that rape was prohibited under the Torah law, and the passage just before the one you quoted showed that rape was a shameful thing in all of Israel (Judges 19:1-29), it was considered such an outrage that the rest of the tribes of Benjamin went to war with Israel (Judges 20).

I can also point out that when King David's son raped Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-22) it is regarded as a shameful thing that doesn't take place in Israel (2 Samuel 13:12).

The Bible in every case where rape is mentioned condemns it.

tommy2bad

PopePalpatine wrote: »

.

Fail, thats a really bad example as it's not about rape but a cunning stunt to circumvent an oath that was taken before.

PopePalpatine

philologos wrote: »

Can you point out where rape is mentioned in that passage?

Because as far as I can tell Genesis 34 strongly condemns rape, Deuteronomy 22 showed that rape was prohibited under the Torah law, and the passage just before the one you quoted showed that rape was a shameful thing in all of Israel (Judges 19:1-29), it was considered such an outrage that the rest of the tribes of Benjamin went to war with Israel (Judges 20).

I can also point out that when King David's son raped Tamar (2 Samuel 13:1-22) it is regarded as a shameful thing that doesn't take place in Israel (2 Samuel 13:12).

The Bible in every case where rape is mentioned condemns it.

I dunno about you, but forcibly marrying women sounds kinda rape-ish to me, considering that marriage probably led to sex in their time.

Sacksian

Deuteronomy 22 clearly does condemn various forms of rape and sets out punishments too.

Most notably, 22:28-29, which says that if a man rapes an unmarried virgin, he has to pay off her father and then marry her.

Uncompromising stuff.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What unfulfilled prophecies are you talking about?

Among other things:

The messiah will be born of natural parents and be himself a normal person, albeit descended from David.

The messiah will build the third temple.

He will gather all the Jews back to Israel where he will be their king.

He will usher in an era of world peace

http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_messiah4.htm

I appreciate Christians believe a lot of this will be achieved with the Second Coming, but that is just a convoluted way of saying Jesus didn't fulfill these prophecies. The Jewish position that he didn't fulfill these prophecies therefore he wasn't the messiah seems less convoluted.

Zombrex

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I dunno about you, but forcibly marrying women sounds kinda rape-ish to me, considering that marriage probably led to sex in their time.

This topic has been discussed to death already and all the Christians here know that the Old Testament never specifically says "rape". Of course it does condone rape, but the issue is that the authors didn't considered it rape so obviously they don't state that it is rape (in the same way the Old Testament doesn't explicitly condone murder, but by definition they didn't consider it murder).

It is just like how you won't find any official Nazi documentation saying Lets murder the Jews, because the Nazi's didn't consider it murder (ie unlawful killing).

What you do have is soldiers taking brides from captured tribes and marrying them. But given that rape is never specifically commanded this gives Christians just enough make believe room to imagine that the women gave themselves willingly to their new husbands in order to avoid starving to death, so it isn't "rape".

So frankly the rape discussion becomes a bit pointless, because ultimately whether you view these passages as condoning rape depends not on what is actually said but on how honestly you read what is not said. Anyone with a vested interest in viewing these passages in the best possible light will be able to say that rape is never explicate stated, but if you are being honest you will also admit that the reason that is is because rape is considered a crime and the people who wrote these passages didn't consider these actions criminal, so obviously they aren't going to call it rape.

marienbad

“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her

Deuteronomy 21: 10-14

Masteroid

JimiTime wrote: »

You kidding me?? You say that the bible condones rape, and then don't refer to where this happens? Eh, I don't think its Phil that needs to put up just yet. Present your case for your accusation (Namely, that The Bible condones rape), and Phil said he'd deal with it. You either have the passages in mind, and you can provide them, or you are just parroting something you probably heard from someone. So yeah, put up or shut up;):)

Suppose that Satan wrote his own version of the bible.

Let me ask you, and please, anyone, try to answer this question honestly:

If Satan had inspired a bible to be written on his behalf in order that he may be glorified, in what qualitatively way would it differ from the bible inspired by God?

If Satan wrote a bible, wouldn't he want to appear in the lead role?

If you are honest, then you must concede that there is no happy ending to the bible.

Unless of course you think that the destruction of the earth is something to be prayed for.

Why would a right-thinking human being support a doctrine whose fulfillment depends on the total destruction of mankind?

Could Satan have come up with anything worse?

If so, then what?

philologos

Sacksian wrote: »

Deuteronomy 22 clearly does condemn various forms of rape and sets out punishments too.

Most notably, 22:28-29, which says that if a man rapes an unmarried virgin, he has to pay off her father and then marry her.

Uncompromising stuff.

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

Peregrinus

Masteroid wrote: »

Suppose that Satan wrote his own version of the bible.

Let me ask you, and please, anyone, try to answer this question honestly:

If Satan had inspired a bible to be written on his behalf in order that he may be glorified, in what qualitatively way would it differ from the bible inspired by God?

If Satan wrote a bible, wouldn't he want to appear in the lead role?

If you are honest, then you must concede that there is no happy ending to the bible.

Unless of course you think that the destruction of the earth is something to be prayed for.

Why would a right-thinking human being support a doctrine whose fulfillment depends on the total destruction of mankind?

Could Satan have come up with anything worse?

If so, then what?

Well, he could have left out all that tiresome love-your-neighbour stuff. And all that bit about justice for the stranger, and protecting the widow and the orphan, and jubilee, and liberation of prisoners, and all that kind of thing. He would have built it around the story of a militarily and economically successful community, not the Israelites. The theme of exile would be entirely missing, as would the theme of covenant. There’d have been no meditation on the significance of suffering. Those who suffered would be presented as weak, therefore bad. The hero would not have been crucified or, if follows, resurrected. The end-of-days stuff might still be there, but without the resurrection it would of course have a completely different meaning. And he would have put in a lot of basically materialist stuff, about the transcendent value of profit and power, and possibly about self-actualisation through consumption.

He could have, you know, inspired something like Atlas Shrugged, only with some modicum of literary style, and perhaps a bit more eroticism to keep the kids reading. In short, Satan's bible would have less turgid writing than Atlas Shrugged, but more turgid willies.

philologos

I find it bizarre that the posters who claim that the Bible advocates rape don't use passages that actually discuss rape. It's equally bizarre considering that every Bible passage that refers to rape condemns it strongly.

It's disheartening to see that instead of reading the Bible for themselves honestly that we're resorting to chestnuts that were answered several years ago on boards.ie.

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I find it bizarre that the posters who claim that the Bible advocates rape don't use passages that actually discuss rape. It's equally bizarre considering that every Bible passage that refers to rape condemns it strongly.

It's disheartening to see that instead of reading the Bible for themselves honestly that we're resorting to chestnuts that were answered several years ago on boards.ie.

Its disheartening to ask for someone to be bold with his testimony and provide the scripture that's been asked for numerous times yet remain unanswered. Its equally bizarre that the scripture is used as a weapon rather than a tool to inform.

philologos

How am I using it as a weapon?

I'm simply responding to others who twist it to be used as a weapon. Its very disheartening to see this.

As for being bold in my testimony I'm not even sure what you mean. My testimony is simple that I believe wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected and I've certainly not held back on that.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I find it bizarre that the posters who claim that the Bible advocates rape don't use passages that actually discuss rape. It's equally bizarre considering that every Bible passage that refers to rape condemns it strongly.

It's disheartening to see that instead of reading the Bible for themselves honestly that we're resorting to chestnuts that were answered several years ago on boards.ie.

are you referring to deut 21. 10-14 ?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

How am I using it as a weapon?

I'm simply responding to others who twist it to be used as a weapon. Its very disheartening to see this.

As for being bold in my testimony I'm not even sure what you mean. My testimony is simple that I believe wholeheartedly in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected and I've certainly not held back on that.

Be bold and post the actual scripture that lies behind your position. Be bold and provide scripture based responses rather than attacking those who challenge your testimony. Would Jesus run from robust questions or try to explain his testimony?
Its disheartening and disappointing to ask for the scripture behind testimony and remain pitifully uninformed.

philologos

I honestly don't get what you're talking about lazygal. I've been more than straight on any of these objections. Most of these have been responded to on multiple occasions before. I'm going to ignore empty accusations like these from here on in.

marienbad: that passage doesn't advocate rape either. The next chapter of Deuteronomy actually shows the Jewish law in respect to rape also. It was condemned.

I've linked to a post where I discuss that.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I honestly don't get what you're talking about lazygal. I've been more than straight on any of these objections. Most of these have been responded to on multiple occasions before. I'm going to ignore empty accusations like these from here on in.

marienbad: that passage doesn't advocate rape either. The next chapter of Deuteronomy actually shows the Jewish law in respect to rape also. It was condemned.

I've linked to a post where I discuss that.

It does say go take women captive and makes them your wives ? correct ?

lazygal

philologos wrote: »

I honestly don't get what you're talking about lazygal. I've been more than straight on any of these objections. Most of these have been responded to on multiple occasions before. I'm going to ignore empty accusations like these from here on in.

marienbad: that passage doesn't advocate rape either. The next chapter of Deuteronomy actually shows the Jewish law in respect to rape also. It was condemned.

I've linked to a post where I discuss that.

OK, I get it. You don't want to provide the scripture to back up your testimony. That's disheartening.

lazygal

marienbad wrote: »

It does say go take women captive and makes them your wives ? correct ?

I guess as long as its done the 'right' way, like slavery or women submitting to their husbands, its all good.

Brian Shanahan

FISMA wrote: »

Brian,
If you're going to make such demands on others, practice what you preach.

I have, in several posts, requested that you demonstrate which Laws of Physics God breaks.

I have demonstrated it repeatedly. A universe governed by physical laws cannot exist with a being which is omnipotent. Just because you don't want to listen doesn't mean I haven't proven my case.

It's like with the creationists, they make point a). You disprove it, they make point b), you disprove it. They make point c), you disprove it. They restate point a) claiming that you've never disproven it therefore they win (according to their own minds).

Brian Shanahan

JimiTime wrote: »

You kidding me?? You say that the bible condones rape, and then don't refer to where this happens?

the bible condoning rape 1 wrote:

genesis:
19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while1 Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway.2 When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face toward the ground.

19:2 He said,“Here, my lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house. Stay the night3 and wash your feet. Then you can be on your way early in the morning.”4 “No,” they replied,“we’ll spend the night in the town square.”5

19:3 But he urged6 them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate. 19:4 Before they could lie down to sleep,7 all the men – both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom – surrounded the house.8 19:5 They shouted to Lot,9 “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex10 with them!”

19:6 Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him. 19:7 He said,“No, my brothers! Don’t act so wickedly!11 19:8 Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with12 a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please.13 Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection14 of my roof.”

the bible condoning rape 2 wrote:

dges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

the bible condoning rape 3 wrote:

(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

the bibe condoning rape 4 wrote:

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

And there is plenty more where that came from. You know, you'll probably find fewer examples of Hitler's anti-semitism in Mein Kampf than you'll find examples of either condoning of or exhortation to rape in the bible.

As they say in mathematics Quad Erat Demonstrandum