Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)
Options
Comments
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »I believe this is called the scatter-gun tactic.
I think you have the wrong poster here Fanny ?0 -
-
Is it wrong for any reason other than God says so? And if it is only good because God says so why does that make it good?
As I said to you already, there is only right and wrong. There is no earthly wrong and heavenly wrong. What you are asking, is for me to reduce it down to a level that will appeal to your subjective interpretation of what makes something right or wrong, and then you can then subjectively pick what is and what isn't harm and so on and so forth.But punishment falls into the realm of morality. Was it moral for the ancient nation of Israel to stone people to death.
I would not use the word moral, nor immoral tbh. I can't imagine stoning someone to death and thinking, 'this is so moral isn't it'. I don't have a moral objection to executing someone in principal(a guilty person of course), but I wouldn't describe it as moral. I think justified and regrettable would be the more appropriate term.why is it not moral now to stone to death people who deceive their husbands.
Because we are not living in a geographical nation under God or the Law, but are rather scattered through many nations and living under the Law of Love which Jesus instituted. Israel was put aside from other nations as Gods people through the promise he made to Abraham, and who his Son and our Messiah would come from. As such, evil was to be purged from it was the instruction. Sin being as pervasive and destructive as it is.
There is still a principal in Christianity which parallels, though not in terms of putting people to death, but rather purging evil from what God has set aside.
1 Corinthians 5
I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”It is odd that moving away from God has greatly reduced the amount of harm we do to each other, and greatly improved the lives of most people.
Well, the Israelites, when loyal to God prospered, as per his promise. It was only in their moving away from him, that they suffered, so I don't know what you are on about.For the example the odds of you dying at the hands of another person are significantly less than the odds of an average Israelite.
I didn't realise you had the stats from ancient Israel. Please share. Also, could you stipulate if these stats you have are from their times of obedience, or their times of rebellion? Also, are you comparing them to the world in general? Dublin? Ireland? And are you referring to the average Joe, or are we comparing the fate of criminals?
Also, what do you mean by 'moving away from God'? As far as I can tell, the closer we got to Christianity, the more humane and less harm we cause each other. Of course, we'll never get it right fully.How often do you hear leaders, particularly in western countries, call on their soldiers to go back to a captured city or country and put everyone to death?
Thats not moving away from God, you are describing not being ancient Israel.
On a side note, I would not be so naive as to think that somehow we are more humane in waging war these days. We just see it happen in a much more cunning and deceitful way. Taking a nations resources, poisoning their waters, reaping the rewards of child labour etc etc. We are adept at talking out of both sides of our mouths. Ravaging nations, while patting ourselves on the back and thinking we are great and moral. Never mind the fact that in REALITY, hundreads of thousands of civilians are wiped out by modern warring methods. Just because its a drone, or a fleet of bombs these days, shouldn't lead you to patting yourself on the back thinking we've moved on. War is brutal! It has never changed in this.Again do you not find it odd that our standards for how to conduct a war (whether the individual soldiers adhere to them or not) involve a lot better treatment of those we inflict war on than in Israel where they were following the direct instructions of God?
I don't think you know modern war in its many guises, if this is your view.What do you mean "broader sense"? I thought there was just right and wrong. Are you saying that something immoral could be moral local to the Israelites?
No, I'm saying it was good for Israel that God fulfilled his promise. In a broader sense, it was not good that the Amorites etc had reached such a pinnacle of wickedness, that they were destroyed on account of it. Just like it wasn't GOOD that Sodom and Gomorrah were so wicked. Much better that all people turn to God and live, like Ninevah, who was set for destruction, but they repented and lived. This is what would be good in a broader sense. I would not describe as good, that people reject God, and receive the wages of their shortcomings. Its a shame. Something regrettable. Its nuanced I suppose, in that its good that the unrepentant wicked are destroyed, but not good that they are wicked and unrepentant or that we are fallen and such action is necessary.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »
Given their context wherein stoning was considered just how can you say that they were wrong? Indeed, if you existed back then you might well have felt passionately that stoning was an appropriate sentence for X,Y or Z. They lived in different times, under different circumstances and had different values.
Yes Fanny, they did! For me this is exactly what it boils down to. Considering that it was a different time, with different circumstances and values, how can a book written by authors who lived in this time, and adhered to completely different social norms and mores, be an appropriate guide on how we should behave several millennia later?0 -
And there you have the full extent of your argument?
Your God would be so pleased at how little you know of your own religion.
Ouch, my feelings.:rolleyes:
Admittedly, I am a mere babe in knowledge and wisdom, full of ignorance. However, I'm honest, which allows me chip away at my ignorance and gain knowledge and wisdom ever so gradually.0 -
Advertisement
-
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Thanks for the Asimov tip. I'll check it out.
The funny thing, marienbad, is that I had you in mind when I type that post. On a number of occasions I believe that you asked Philologs whether certain social/ moral prescriptions in the Bible would be considered moral today. If you aren't interested in applying contemporary moral standards to the past then why ask the question?
Furthermore, how can you admit to being a moral subjectivist (and I assume we both understand the term in the same way and that you accept the label) without pulling the rug out from any notion that you can level a valid moral criticism at people living in other times or other places? They did what they thought was morally correct. You do what you think is morally correct. People in the future will do what they think is morally correct. And all of them might have different notions about what is morally correct.
OK, so you think it is immoral to stone someone to death. Great. I'm happy to hear it. However, in a similar vein to my text above, if someone 3,000 years ago considered stoning members of rival tribes, spies, adulterers or whoever else to be both moral and just then what do you say about that? Given their context wherein stoning was considered just how can you say that they were wrong? Indeed, if you existed back then you might well have felt passionately that stoning was an appropriate sentence for X,Y or Z. They lived in different times, under different circumstances and had different values. Similarly, if people in the future look back in horror at some of your moral choices then what?
It seems to me that all you have said is that people have or will do stuff that you don't like and vise versa. A particular deed is not wrong in any grand or external sense. It is wrong only for the subject given their situation, and it is therefore possible that somebody opposed to stoning would think that stoning is right given the correct circumstance.
The reasons I keep asking Philologos those questions Fanny is not because I think my idea of right and wrong can be transferred back to that past , but because he thinks the system of rights and wrongs of the past can be transferred to the present and the future.
But this he and others only apply selectively. And I find the best counter to that train of thought is to ask why this law but not that law and the contortions applied to explain that. For example the recent discussions on the place of women in marriage and the issue of rape.
I believe they believe if they concede on these issues then they are afraid the whole can of worms on homosexuality women etc is now on the table for review and so any and all questions are answered not on their merits but on what the knock on effect will be.
And yes I do accept that each era should be judged on the moral code from that era and at the same time be somewhat puzzled the Greeks who knew everything still owned slaves ,or the Christian idea of Caritas could still allow people to torture and burn at the stake . And as you have said yourself maybe some future age will look back on our era and wonder how with all our knowledge and certainty we did'nt see abortion was so wrong.
But as Mr Asimov says , we are not right just a little bit less wrong than before.0 -
As I said to you already, there is only right and wrong. There is no earthly wrong and heavenly wrong. What you are asking, is for me to reduce it down to a level that will appeal to your subjective interpretation of what makes something right or wrong, and then you can then subjectively pick what is and what isn't harm and so on and so forth.
I suppose I'm asking you why do you feel something is wrong just because God says so? If there are no negative effects to it (assume) but God still says it is wrong, is it wrong?
Theists like to divorce right and wrong from any tangable consequences, so something is "wrong" just sort of hangs there as an intangible property of the thing itself.
Seems incredibly silly to me, I mean what is "wrong" with doing wrong if doing it has no negative effects on anyway.I would not use the word moral, nor immoral tbh. I can't imagine stoning someone to death and thinking, 'this is so moral isn't it'. I don't have a moral objection to executing someone in principal(a guilty person of course), but I wouldn't describe it as moral. I think justified and regrettable would be the more appropriate term.
What does that mean? You don't think there are immoral ways to execute someone, even if you believe in capital punishment?Because we are not living in a geographical nation under God or the Law, but are rather scattered through many nations and living under the Law of Love which Jesus instituted. Israel was put aside from other nations as Gods people through the promise he made to Abraham, and who his Son and our Messiah would come from. As such, evil was to be purged from it was the instruction. Sin being as pervasive and destructive as it is.
And a good way to do that was to stone people to death?
Stoning someone to death is a particular nasty and vicious method of executing someone. The Israelite would have had access to other methods, such as beheading. It seems nothing but cruel to insist on killing someone this way, a method designed to very very slowly kill someone while inflicting a lot of suffering before they die.
I'm not following your objection to calling this moral (surely it is moral because it is ordered by God himself?) but even at justified and necessary that seems an odd decision. If you believe it was necessary to execute people who sinned, why execute them in such a cruel fashion?Well, the Israelites, when loyal to God prospered, as per his promise.
Surely that depends on how you define "prospered". Do you mean simply accumulation of wealth for the wealthy?
It certainly doesn't seem to mean reduce the harm done to each other and increase the happiness and liberty of all the individuals. Life for an individual Israelite even when they were prospering would be much worse than life for the average Irish person.
Do you believe we are prospering less than the Israelite by no longer executing criminals? If you contrast quality of living in Ireland with countries that do execute criminals I think we are doing much better.I didn't realise you had the stats from ancient Israel. Please share. Also, could you stipulate if these stats you have are from their times of obedience, or their times of rebellion? Also, are you comparing them to the world in general? Dublin? Ireland? And are you referring to the average Joe, or are we comparing the fate of criminals?
Can you detail when the "time of obedience" was?
And I was referring largely to the fate of "criminals". Of course in a country with such laws everyone eventually ends up being a criminal.Also, what do you mean by 'moving away from God'? As far as I can tell, the closer we got to Christianity, the more humane and less harm we cause each other. Of course, we'll never get it right fully.
That isn't how I would see it. Since the Enlightenment there has been a mark move away from strict religious observance, and also a marked improvement in a whole host of variables from life expectancy and scientific knowledge to notions of individual liberty and freedom.On a side note, I would not be so naive as to think that somehow we are more humane in waging war these days. We just see it happen in a much more cunning and deceitful way. Taking a nations resources, poisoning their waters, reaping the rewards of child labour etc etc. We are adept at talking out of both sides of our mouths.
That greatly underestimates the horrific things the Israelite did in the Old Testament.
While it is horrible some of the stuff that was done, for example, in Iraq after the war, with American corporations making tons of money due keeping the country in a state of unstable civil war, it would be grossly disingenious to say that this was on the same level as the Israelite army marching into Bagdad and putting to death all the citizens.Ravaging nations, while patting ourselves on the back and thinking we are great and moral. War is brutal! It has never changed in this.
War certainly is brutal. But that does not mean all actions in war are equivalent. Blowing up a bridge that supplies food to a city, causing food shortages and even famine is not a good thing, it would be hard to argue that it is moral no matter what the strategic end goal was.
But again it is not in the same league as rounding up all the women and children and then stabbing them to death. Or killing all the non-virgins and then taking the virgins home as plunder.
Including all the Israelites who were stoned to death?No, I'm saying it was good for Israel that God fulfilled his promise.
Surely if executing someone in such a cruel manner is wrong it is wrong universally? If it is wrong for Alabama to stone a prisioner to death in 2013 it is wrong for an Israelite to stone a prisoner to death in 4,113BC?I would not describe as good, that people reject God, and receive the wages of their shortcomings. Its a shame. Something regrettable.
But not inevitable. You would agree I hope that there isn't something inevitable about being stabbed in the heart after rejecting God. I mean I've rejected God, but I would be rather annoyed if you decided that I therefore should be put to death by the sword.
God couldn't have figured out a way to destroy them that didn't involve as much cruelty? Or heck, not destroyed them at all but just stopped them harming each other (it is rather ironic to destroy an entire civilisation on the basis that they aren't treating either other correctly).Its nuanced I suppose, in that its good that the unrepentant wicked are destroyed
Why is that good? What does that achieve?0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »Actually, the word “carnally” isn’t used in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew text just uses a word which means “to know”. And the early English translations, e.g. the King James, follow this.
It was, of course, a euphemism. The literal meaning of the Hebrew word was “to know”, but the euphemistic meaning was “to have sex with”.
Genesis 38:26 So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again.
Judges 11:39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
Judges 19:25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.
1 Samuel 1:19 Then they rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord, and returned and came to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her.
What does the word 'knew' mean in the passages above?
And why do you assume that the concubine was raped when the author quite clearly does not specify rape?
In fact, unless you include the homosexual aspect there is no moral issue for those whom the story concerns.
Firstly, the men of the city turned up because they wanted to know the strangers(s). How do you work out that this is an act of inhospitality?
The man doesn't want to share his new friend so he sends them away and sarcastically offers to let them take his daughter out. She is a virgin and there is legislation that applies to her defloration and since the mob don't want to be compelled to marry the girl and pay compensation to the father that offer was never going to be accepted.
And indeed, according to the story, there is no question that the daughter is safe.
However, the guys want to get to know the old man's new friend but the Levite is tired.
And cranky. Because of the hardship she has caused him lately, the Levite is displeased with his concubine and he presented her to the mob as a gift.
Obviously he was able to do that because she had no value as a person and therefore the mob broke no moral code that the Levite hadn't already shattered when they 'knew' her but perhaps they went a little far by abusing her.
And the following morning the Levite treats her with disdain. 'Come on you, Let's go,' he tells her. There is no mention of the poor sick girl receiving hospitality from the Levite who the cuts her up into a dozen pieces by which time, presumably, she is dead.
Remove the homosexual aspect from the story of Lot and you have the same kind of thing.
In order to shoe-horn your preferred narrative into the text you have to infer much more than I do.Peregrinus wrote: »You - and many others - assume that the euphemistic meaning of the word is the only relevant one here. I agree with you, as it happens, that in this context the euphemistic meaning is invoked; the citizens did indeed want to have sex with the angels. Nevertheless, this isn’t a story primarily or mainly about sexual morality. I suggest that the use of “know” here is very deliberate; it evokes both the direct meaning - the angels are strangers, and therefore unknown to the citizens - and the sexual meaning - because strangers are hated and feared, the citizens want to inflict humiliating violence on them, and what better way to do that than with spot of gang rape? (The “know carnally” translation tries to preserve both of these nuances, which would be lost if a more idiomatic translation like “have sex with” were used.)
I disagree totally.
If strangers are routinely gang-raped in Sodom then why is there no mention of Lot being raped when he arrived there as a stanger?
Why would he have stayed and raised a family there if he was 'hated and feared' and subjected to 'humiliating violence'?
And is the hypocrisy of the Israelites completely lost on you? How can a nation whose mantra is 'enslave or destroy all the cities that are far away' complain about hospitality?Peregrinus wrote: »We moderns are obsessed with sex, and we can’t conceive that a moral story which involves sex isn’t about sex. Indeed, when we hear the words “moral” or “immoral”, sexual connotations are the first things that come to mind. But that’s our problem. We have no reason to impute that attitude to the authors or editors of these texts, or to the original authors. And we have two powerful reasons for thinking that, in fact, they didn’t understand the text as making a point about homosexuality.
The first, as I’ve already pointed out, is that the story of Sodom in Gen 19 is very deliberately contrasted with the story of Abraham in Gen 18, and the contrast is between the hospitality to strangers shown by Abraham the poor nomadic grazer, versus the hostility shown to strangers by the rich and powerful city of Sodom. As it happens, the hostility took the form of a threat of sexual violence, but obsession with the fact that it was sexual is our obsession; we’re bringing that to the interpretation. The sexual aspect of the Gen 19 story doesn’t contrast with anything in Gen 18; the violence and hatred certainly does.
The second thing is that we know how the Israelites understood this story because this, too, is recorded in (later) scripture. Ezekiel, writing at a time when the story of Sodom is already an ancient and hallowed one, invokes it in his own writings, and says “this was the guilt of Sodom; she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things.” Now, you can read “abominable things” as referring to sexual violence, or homosexual violence, but it’s clearly at most a minor theme in the condemnation of Sodom; the focus is on Sodom’s wealth, and its disdain for others. And all the classic rabbinical commentaries take the same line; this is a story about the ethical imperative of hospitality (which, don’t forget, is a constant preoccupation of the OT moral codes). It wasn’t until a couple of thousand years had passed that modern Europeans began to read this as a story mainly about The Gay. Quite why our culture came to take a different view is a subject for another discussion, but obviously it’s tied in with our preoccupation with sex.
'We moderns are obsessed with sex'? More than we were three-thousand years ago?
Yeah right. Have a read of Jacob's love-life. Can you imagine if they made a film about it? There would be loads of sex in it.
Okay, so the authors of the bible didn't think it immoral to use women as bargaining chips but did consider it immoral not to invite a stranger into your house.
Okay, so sexual deviancy is not an abomination but not looking after the poor and needy is.
Okay so raping an unbetrothed virgin earns a slap on the wrist and letting a stranger sleep in the town square earns the outright condemnation of an entire population leading to mass executions.
So let us imagine that the Mosaic law concerning sex, marriage and adultery have nothing to do with morality.
And let us focus on Sodom's wealth.
How does a city that hates and fears strangers become prosperous?
How do people who routinely subject strangers to sexual violence manage to trade outside themselves in order to attract wealth?
How did Sodom come to have a surfeit of food if it hadn't practiced farming and husbandry properly?
How did Lot come to prosper in a city that hated, feared and subjected him to sexual violence whilst successfully raising a family?
If it wasn't sodomy that made them an abomination against God then what specifically did?
The whole story is simply a justification for genocide and so is the one in Judges.
We don't know enough about the Sodomites or the Benjaminites to talk of their morality and instead we have to trust Lot and the Levite that their stories justify the genocides that followed.
But we do know that neither of them gave a rat's behind for the women in their charge.
And still I say that if you consider Satan as being the inspirer of the bible then it could not read better as a set of instructions for turning brother against brother worded exactly as it is except that 'God' and 'Satan' would be reversed.
If you thought that anyone but God inspired the bible then I think that you would consider it as a horror story.0 -
Ouch, my feelings.:rolleyes:
Admittedly, I am a mere babe in knowledge and wisdom, full of ignorance. However, I'm honest, which allows me chip away at my ignorance and gain knowledge and wisdom ever so gradually.
Then you must recognise that your objections to observations of the bible made by non-religionists are fuelled entirely by religious bias.
Which is why you can't make a cogent argument.
It also explains why you think that 'to stone or not to stone' is not a moral issue.0 -
Hell, I can't comprehend how someone who proclaims to e a christian cannot include killing people in their moral landscape!
Jimi you need to clear this up
The rest of ye need to realise that the bible is 'our' side of the story, when it says that God said it should be read as we think this is what God would want. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hell, I can't comprehend how someone who proclaims to e a christian cannot include killing people in their moral landscape!
Jimi you need to clear this up
The rest of ye need to realise that the bible is 'our' side of the story, when it says that God said it should be read as we think this is what God would want. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.
Personally, I'd like to check the credentials of those who would gain my soul.
What would Satan want? Rape, murder, genocide?
Exactly what the OT prescribes but would these things be considered worse for being Satan's will?
Is it okay for Richard to butcher Muslim women and children but sinful when done by Saladin (which he didn't).
Fact is, if Satan preached the opposite of the OT then the world would have been a better place.
Now that is irony.:rolleyes:0 -
So I'm thinking that men wrote the OT misguidedly thinking they were hearing God and you think if Satan wrote it...Hmmmmm.
Well thats the real irony, because the bible tells us that when we go with what we think then Satan is the one in control.
Damn this is complicated
0 -
Personally, I'd like to check the credentials of those who would gain my soul.
What would Satan want? Rape, murder, genocide?
Exactly what the OT prescribes but would these things be considered worse for being Satan's will?
Is it okay for Richard to butcher Muslim women and children but sinful when done by Saladin (which he didn't).
Fact is, if Satan preached the opposite of the OT then the world would have been a better place.
Now that is irony.:rolleyes:
You seem to speak about Satan a lot Masteroid in relation to the 'Word' of God - especially, for an atheist who doesn't believe in satan -
An Atheist who believes in nothing absolutely good or evil, and only depends on how you really can only inhabit a material chemically addicted brain and you are just an animal ( with an opinion ) - to put it coarsely -
I think that particular belief can be a self fulfilling prophesy. You are what you believe and what you pursue. Christ alludes to it too in Scripture in relation to seeking 'truth'...
It seems odd to hear an Atheist speak of 'satan' so much (da da da dum) and also about what is right and wrong so fervently on the Christian forum in relation to Scripture and their err 'interpretation' - when you don't seem to know anything about how you conclude what is or isn't right or wrong in the first place - yet claim some kind of 'moral' high ground just well 'because' really you feel like it.
Seeking Endorphins today? I think we could study that....:p0 -
Why were trillions of extra planets created? That does not sound like a divine plan.
If humans are so important - why then did we come along a long time after other life forms and when the sun is half-way through its lifespan? The Sun will be around for about another 5 billion years but in about 1 billion years it will be too hot to live on Earth. That does not sound like a divine plan either.Mitch Hedberg: "Rice is great if you're really hungry and want to eat two thousand of something."
0 -
Why were trillions of extra planets created? That does not sound like a divine plan.
If humans are so important - why then did we come along a long time after other life forms and when the sun is half-way through its lifespan? The Sun will be around for about another 5 billion years but in about 1 billion years it will be too hot to live on Earth. That does not sound like a divine plan either.
Well you are arguing from a linear scale time perspective. I think people naturally see time in a log scale. Its wrong to see one as any more appropriate then the other. Also if the universe is so random why is it mathematical? Why is it so measurable only after such a tiny amount of time spent studying ie the last 500 years in detailed study. Anyway if there is a high amount of certainty about it looking like a divine plan there would be little free will.0 -
So what if there was little free will? My understanding is that once the whole heaven thing kicks in there will be no free will. This has been discussed before, Wolfsbane was explaining that there would be no sin in heaven, the earth reborn I believe, and this would be achieved by removing everyone's free will. So you have a stupid test, life on earth, which is completely disproportionate to the prize or punishment, but we have to have free will during the test, because otherwise we could not love and we would be like robots, but when we get to heaven we get a lobotomy and have to spend eternity in some kind of robotic sycophantic trance. not my idea of heaven.Anyway if there is a high amount of certainty about it looking like a divine plan there would be little free will.
MrP0 -
So what if there was little free will? My understanding is that once the whole heaven thing kicks in there will be no free will. This has been discussed before, Wolfsbane was explaining that there would be no sin in heaven, the earth reborn I believe, and this would be achieved by removing everyone's free will. So you have a stupid test, life on earth, which is completely disproportionate to the prize or punishment, but we have to have free will during the test, because otherwise we could not love and we would be like robots, but when we get to heaven we get a lobotomy and have to spend eternity in some kind of robotic sycophantic trance. not my idea of heaven.
MrP
As you have so well shown the logicality of this idea(in bold), isn't it obvious that Wolfsbane is just wrong on it?0 -
I am not really the person to ask, of course I think he is wrong, but not for what you have highlighted, obviously.As you have so well shown the logicality of this idea(in bold), isn't it obvious that Wolfsbane is just wrong on it?
That aside, I don't think his option is a narrowly held one. I can't recall exactly, it was some time ago, but his view was supported by other posters.
MrP0 -
See thats why I find it hard to call myself a Christian, the amount of badly thought out ideas and plain guessing instead of just admitting theirs stuff we don't know.
Thank God we have the expression "it's a mystery" 0 -
Too true. Without mysterious ways you would be in a spot of bother!See thats why I find it hard to call myself a Christian, the amount of badly thought out ideas and plain guessing instead of just admitting theirs stuff we don't know.
Thank God we have the expression "it's a mystery"
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
It means, as I said before, “have sex with”.Genesis 38:26 So Judah acknowledged them and said, “She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son.” And he never knew her again.
Judges 11:39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
Judges 19:25 But the men would not heed him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until morning; and when the day began to break, they let her go.
1 Samuel 1:19 Then they rose early in the morning and worshiped before the Lord, and returned and came to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her.
What does the word 'knew' mean in the passages above?
I’m not sure where you’re going with these questions , Masteroid. I’ve already said that “know” means to have sex with, and so far as I know nobody in this thread has disputed this. Unless I’m missing something, you seem to be labouring a point which everyone agrees on.
Are you serious?And why do you assume that the concubine was raped when the author quite clearly does not specify rape?
“As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him."
And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing."
But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man's house where her master was, till it was light.
And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, "Get up, let us be going." But there was no answer.”
You think that doesn’t describe a rape? Seriously?
No offence, but that’s what we in the plain speaking trade call a steaming pile of horse manure. The homosexual aspect is the only moral aspect if you disregard all the other moral aspects.In fact, unless you include the homosexual aspect there is no moral issue for those whom the story concerns.
Well, your suspicions should be first aroused by be the response of the householder. Your second clue should be the response of the man they wanted to “know”. If you were still in any doubt, the rape and murder of the concubine might lead you to think that this was not a civic welcome party.Firstly, the men of the city turned up because they wanted to know the strangers(s). How do you work out that this is an act of inhospitality?
The flaw in this reading is that it completely depends on your assumption that the concubine “had no value as a person”. Yet the story itself shows that she did have value, both to the Levite who travelled to her home to persuade her to return to him, while respecting her right not to do so if she chose, and to her wider society who were so horrified at her rape and murder that it became the cause of a terrible war. The story turns on the fact that the rape and murder of such a person was not inconsequential; it was the polar opposite of inconsequential. It had terrible consequences. And since your interpretation of the story has to overlook this fairly central point, I find it implausible.The man doesn't want to share his new friend so he sends them away and sarcastically offers to let them take his daughter out. She is a virgin and there is legislation that applies to her defloration and since the mob don't want to be compelled to marry the girl and pay compensation to the father that offer was never going to be accepted.
And indeed, according to the story, there is no question that the daughter is safe.
However, the guys want to get to know the old man's new friend but the Levite is tired.
And cranky. Because of the hardship she has caused him lately, the Levite is displeased with his concubine and he presented her to the mob as a gift.
Obviously he was able to do that because she had no value as a person and therefore the mob broke no moral code that the Levite hadn't already shattered when they 'knew' her but perhaps they went a little far by abusing her.
And the following morning the Levite treats her with disdain. 'Come on you, Let's go,' he tells her. There is no mention of the poor sick girl receiving hospitality from the Levite who the cuts her up into a dozen pieces by which time, presumably, she is dead.
Not at all. I just have to pay attention to what’s in the text, and refrain from disregarding the bits that don’t suit a preconceived narrative. Your reading of the Gen 19 story, for example, requires you to ignore the pronounced counterpoint between the experiences of the angels in Gen 18 and in Gen 19. Your insistence that the central point is that heterosexual rape is to be preferred to homosexual rape requires you to ignore the fact that that the Judges 19 version of the story points to the terribleness of heterosexual rape – which you do by pretending that the Judges 19 story doesn’t involve rape at all. But – no offence – you can’t expect to be taken seriously if, given the similar structure and language of the two stories, you simultaneously maintain that the Gen 19 story condones rape but the Judges 19 story doesn’t deal with rape at all.In order to shoe-horn your preferred narrative into the text you have to infer much more than I do.If strangers are routinely gang-raped in Sodom then why is there no mention of Lot being raped when he arrived there as a stanger?
Why would he have stayed and raised a family there if he was 'hated and feared' and subjected to 'humiliating violence'?
We’re not given an account of Lot’s arrival in Sodom; the event is mentioned in passing in Gen 13:12. Perhaps he was raped. Perhaps he arrived in Sodom under circumstances which protected him, e.g. as a client or business associate of a citizen. Perhaps he negotiated his arrival in Sodom. Perhaps he was just lucky. Perhaps the hostility of Sodom to outsiders was something that only arose after his arrival. Perhaps the hostility of Sodom was directed at passers-through rather than at settlers. If the authors and editors wanted us to learn anything from the treatment Lot received on his arrival in Sodom, they would have told us about his arrival in Sodom.
Well, that’s not actually their mantra, is it? More to the point, no-one in the Sodom story, on any side, is an Israelite, and the story is placed in a time long, long before the law in Deut was supposedly given. The Sodom story is placed in Abraham’s lifetime; the law in Deut is supposedly given by Moses, a much later figure.And is the hypocrisy of the Israelites completely lost on you? How can a nation whose mantra is 'enslave or destroy all the cities that are far away' complain about hospitality?
Indeed there would, but that’s because films are made according to our values. “Jacob had an active sex life” does not mean that Jacob was obsessed by sex; it just means he was sexually active. The Israelites managed to produce texts which mention his sex life but do not treat it as a matter of central significance. Our biopic of him, however, would on your own admission contain “loads of sex”. So who exactly is preoccupied with sex here? Jacob? The Israelites? Or the people who make the porny biopic?We moderns are obsessed with sex'? More than we were three-thousand years ago?
Yeah right. Have a read of Jacob's love-life. Can you imagine if they made a film about it? There would be loads of sex in it.
But, helpful though your evidence is, I don’t need to rely on it to show our preoccupation with sex. I’m not the first to note, for example , that in other cultures “homosexual” and “heterosexual” described something you did; for us they describe something you are. It’s our culture that has come up with the notion of a sexual identity; that your sexual predilections define who you are in a way that is not true of other aspects of your behaviour, tastes or psyche. Or, our culture, having developed the internet, has used it to a substantial extent to communicate information and images related to sex. No previous culture has used a major technological breakthrough in this way. Or, again, our culture uses sexual images to sell everything from laxatives to shampoo, and a major factor in our exposure to sexual images is their extensive use in commercial advertising.
In short, our culture assigns sex a central place in experience and identity, in a way that previous cultures did not.
Note that I’m not saying that it’s a good thing or a bad thing; I’m just saying that it’s a real thing.
You’re assuming your conclusion, there, Masteroid. I suggest that these stories – especially the Judges 19 version – show that the writers did consider it immoral to use women as bargaining chips.Okay, so the authors of the bible didn't think it immoral to use women as bargaining chips but did consider it immoral not to invite a stranger into your house.
Read more carefully, Masteroid. In the OT, they are both abominations.Okay, so sexual deviancy is not an abomination but not looking after the poor and needy is.
They do have nothing to do with morality in this story, Masteroid. As already pointed out, this story is set long befrore the Mosaic law is given. Besides, when the Mosaic law is given, it is addressed only to Jews, and the citizens of Sodom were not Jews.So let us imagine that the Mosaic law concerning sex, marriage and adultery have nothing to do with morality.
Other way around. It’s because it has become prosperous that it hates and fears strangers. It assume that, being poor, they are jealous of Sodom and will seek to sponge of it, or make war on it. (Think of how some modern Americans feel about illegal immigrants.)And let us focus on Sodom's wealth.
How does a city that hates and fears strangers become prosperous?
By controlling the terms of trade. Lots of racist and xenophobic societies have become prosperous, down to our own time. You don’t need me to tell you that.How do people who routinely subject strangers to sexual violence manage to trade outside themselves in order to attract wealth?
Oppression of the stranger, the poor and the needy, as I have already said and as Ezekiel said before me. How many times do I have to answer this question?If it wasn't sodomy that made them an abomination against God then what specifically did?
More horse-manure. Not even a drivelling idiot can read the story in Judges and think the destruction described there is presented as a good thing.The whole story is simply a justification for genocide and so is the one in Judges.
These are both horror stories – intentionally so. That’s the point of them. They do not have good outcomes, and we are not supposed to take the outcomes as good.If you thought that anyone but God inspired the bible then I think that you would consider it as a horror story.0 -
So what if there was little free will? My understanding is that once the whole heaven thing kicks in there will be no free will. This has been discussed before, Wolfsbane was explaining that there would be no sin in heaven, the earth reborn I believe, and this would be achieved by removing everyone's free will. So you have a stupid test, life on earth, which is completely disproportionate to the prize or punishment, but we have to have free will during the test, because otherwise we could not love and we would be like robots, but when we get to heaven we get a lobotomy and have to spend eternity in some kind of robotic sycophantic trance. not my idea of heaven.
MrP
I can't speak about any afterlife but a great description I heard as why there is hell is you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Remember that hell is defined as separation from God's love and is meant to be a consequence of refusing God's love. So there is logic there. One good result of this scheme things is that reason and one's freedom are elevated to a very high level.0 -
-
I can't speak about any afterlife but a great description I heard as why there is hell is you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. Remember that hell is defined as separation from God's love and is meant to be a consequence of refusing God's love.
Why though? Why would God wish to punish people who refused his love, refusing his love being defined as people who don't believe the claims of a 1st century cult leader.
Christianity has a habit of claiming God is all about "love" and then describing some very unloving things. I mean you can slap "love" onto anything, but that doesn't make it so. I can beat my wife while claiming I do it out of love, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to marvel at how deeply I love my wife when I put her in the hospital.0 -
Why though? Why would God wish to punish people who refused his love, refusing his love being defined as people who don't believe the claims of a 1st century cult leader.
Christianity has a habit of claiming God is all about "love" and then describing some very unloving things. I mean you can slap "love" onto anything, but that doesn't make it so. I can beat my wife while claiming I do it out of love, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to marvel at how deeply I love my wife when I put her in the hospital.
I duno, calling an ambulance and getting her to a hospital? sounds like love to me! :P
God might not be as into punishing people as people are. Their's a certain satisfaction in knowing that the people you hate will suffer for all eternity while you rest easy on a floating cloud. You can see how it might be thought of that way while God never intended it as such.
But this is old well plowed ground, no point going back over it.0 -
Why though? Why would God wish to punish people who refused his love, refusing his love being defined as people who don't believe the claims of a 1st century cult leader.
Christianity has a habit of claiming God is all about "love" and then describing some very unloving things. I mean you can slap "love" onto anything, but that doesn't make it so. I can beat my wife while claiming I do it out of love, but that doesn't mean anyone else is going to marvel at how deeply I love my wife when I put her in the hospital.
That isn't really true is it? For instance the CC emphasises that talking about certain people going to hell or heaven is extremely presumptuous and beyond what we aught to do. Secondly many of the mainstreams churches such as CC believe non-christians can reach heaven. I think a really important point is that often it seen as belief (akay love) vs scepticism but there are abundant wonderfully christians who had enormous doubts but ultimately they followed their conscience and reason and still loved God.
I don't see how the 'focus' on love cold be just spin. There are countless examples of religious people who put this love at the centre of their lives and indeed were on-fire with this. To me 'blind obedience' does at all catch their characteristics.I duno, calling an ambulance and getting her to a hospital? sounds like love to me! :P
God might not be as into punishing people as people are. Their's a certain satisfaction in knowing that the people you hate will suffer for all eternity while you rest easy on a floating cloud. You can see how it might be thought of that way while God never intended it as such.
But this is old well plowed ground, no point going back over it.
The thing is though the Gospels are crystal clear not to do this. Its easy to forget just how radical and counter-intuitive it is to 'love your enemy'.0 -
That isn't really true is it? For instance the CC emphasises that talking about certain people going to hell or heaven is extremely presumptuous and beyond what we aught to do. Secondly many of the mainstreams churches such as CC believe non-christians can reach heaven.
That is some what missing the point. If God actually loves us why does anyone have to "reach" heaven, and why have a hell at all? If he loves us why would God punish people for either not loving him or simply not believing in him in the first place. All sins are paid by Jesus apparently but God is still going to send you to hell simply for non-belief. I mean I don't feel any particular desire to punish those who don't love me, and I'm just a flawed mortal, nor do I claim to love these people.
It seems Christians have taken the need to be worshipped and loved coupled with a desire to punish those who don't, the sign of a petty and insecure being, and slapped the term "love" on it simply because the being is God.
You can call something "love", but that doesn't make it so, particular when the actions run counter to the concept.0 -
That is some what missing the point. If God actually loves us why does anyone have to "reach" heaven, and why have a hell at all? If he loves us why would God punish people for either not loving him or simply not believing in him in the first place. All sins are paid by Jesus apparently but God is still going to send you to hell simply for non-belief. I mean I don't feel any particular desire to punish those who don't love me, and I'm just a flawed mortal, nor do I claim to love these people.
It seems Christians have taken the need to be worshipped and loved coupled with a desire to punish those who don't, the sign of a petty and insecure being, and slapped the term "love" on it simply because the being is God.
You can call something "love", but that doesn't make it so, particular when the actions run counter to the concept.
Who cares Zombrex? One of the first things taught to you as a health professional wanting to practice in mental health is not to argue with delusion.0 -
Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning! 0
-
Advertisement
-
Kiwi in IE wrote: »Awaiting delete of previous post and infraction/banning!
Why?
Because you equated Christians with having mental health issues? I think its good that you can reveal your thoughts with clarity tbh. It informs posters as to where they stand in the spectrum of discussion with you. Its good to know when talking to you, that you believe you are talking to the equivalent of a Lomans patient when talking to a Christian. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement