Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, that is wrong. The modern idea (at least the Christian one, which is what this Forum is here to discuss) is that violence and aggression are not valid behaviour since the coming of Jesus Christ. That is based on applying the words of Jesus Christ onto the Bible, not the Enlightenment.

That is not the point.

If the response had been Yes God approved of all these things back then but then after Jesus something changed and now he doesn't then fair enough. You might have an issue with why God appears to be changing his mind, but it would at least be consistent with the Bible.

The point is the re-writing (or re-interpreting) these passages in the Old Testament to make them appear softer than they actually were based on modern notions of morality.

Newsite was doing it when trying to assert that slavery in the Old Testament isn't actually like the slavery we would know from places like 17th century America.

And you both did it with the suggestion that the Israelites weren't raping the women plundered from wars.

If the response was "Yes they did all these things, yes God approved of all these things, but we shouldn't do them because of Jesus" then fair enough. One could hardly say that this was re-writing of the Bible.

But this thread (the original one) was not about justifying what is in the Old Testament (you could just say God can say or do what ever the heck he likes), but about changing the Old Testament based on the morality of the day.

PDN wrote: »

I realise that you think there is some kind of virtue in spouting off your opinions about how the Bible should be interpreted without bothering to learn something about the subject first, and then expecting others to accord the same validity as to those who spend a lifetime learning the biblical languages and immersing themselves in the historical and cultural context of the day.

Your constant I know more about the Bible than you stick does get very tiresome PDN.

You may genuinely believe that your years of Biblical study have given you keen insight into the nuances of the Bible that my Neanderthal atheist brain can't grasp.

But your study of the Bible suffers from a massive handy cap, you are forced by your own religious beliefs (that is suspect came long before you seriously studied the Old Testament) to interpret the Bible in a particular fashion, closed off to the simple and logical conclusions that those looking at it independently and unbiased can grasp on first reading.

The Israelites raped their prisoners of war.

They took prisoners as wives against their will and had sex with them. This was considered normal and done with the blessing of their god.

Is that particularly unusual? Is this signalling out the Israelites for some particularly harsh anti-Christian vitriol? Is this the charge of rabid anti-Christian atheists who want to paint Christianity in a negative light?

No, of course not. Everyone raped their prisoners of war back then. Alexander the Great raped and pillaged his way through most of the known world, and had his poets and scribes write glorious songs about him as he went.

It is neither surprising nor particularly shocking to find such passages in the Old Testament. You could compare it to any other religion or culture of the time and probably find it mild by comparison.

The problem is of course the question Newsite asked, Do you think God approves of rape? Once the theological element is introduced, which you are forced to do but which I have the luxury of ignoring, a whole pile of problems arise.

Well certainly think God approved of rape (or as I put it to Newsite, I think the men who wrote the Bible saw nothing wrong with it and were happy to state they did it with the blessing of their god).

You and Newsite, despite all your claims to view God as the source of morality not a reflection of your own morality, can't think that because rape of prisoners of war is abhorrent to you and thus your god cannot approve of such things. So that can't be what these passages are saying, despite that obviously being what these passages are saying.

I have the very satisfying advantage of viewing the Old Testament as just a book, and thus have not closed my mind to the most logical and obvious answers to these questions. There is no unacceptable answer. There is no answer that cannot be considered because it clashes with theological beliefs.

I say satisfying because it doesn't require me to go through the sort of cognitive dissonance so common on this forum where excuses for these passages are quickly thrown up (Oh slavery wasn't that sort of slavery!) and then quickly obfuscated around when the holes in such excuses are exposed (Er, what about prisoners of war?).

So forgive me if I don't take your appeal to authority in this regard all that seriously.

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

Like someone speaking and acting so as to make it appear that the Bible is proof of the existence of their particular God. It isn't.
I have a book here that I read to my daughters however I don't hold it to prove the factual existence of Snow White.

Maybe you should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?

I'm sure Fred Phelps could say the same thing.

I'm sure he could say anything he wants - but I fail to see the relevance here other than a bit of gratuitous trolling.

Using Ockhams' Razor, it is more likely that the Universe sprang from nothing than that it sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing.

I agree - but of course Christians don't believe that the Universe sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I agree that the kind of slavery employed by people in our recent past against the black people of Africa for the most part was a very grave evil form of slavery because it was totally motivated by greed and nothing of the welfare of the people brought into that slavery was ever a consideration.

Unlike the Old Testament?

Deuteronomy 20
10 “When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. 11 If it agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you.

So you've made peace with these people, but what peace actually means is that they all become your slaves. If they don't agree to "peace" (ie slavery) you kill them all except for the women you find attractive, you take them for your wives.

Explain to me how that is different to the "kind of slavery" you are talking about above?

Fanny Cradock

Simtech wrote: »

Using Ockhams' Razor, it is more likely that the Universe sprang from nothing than that it sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing. I'd like to believe there is a God, the creator, (it would give me hope that I don't have) but it doesn't make rational sense in my mind. There are fewer steps to it if the Universe sprang from nothing.

Ockham's Razor isn't binding. It's a epistemological rule of thumb. Like any rule of thumb it's application depends first on the nature of the scenario it might be applied to.

It seems to me that you are left with are the following options.

A universe that "sprang from nothing" - were "nothing" may mean no-thing, or it might mean something, as in quantum vacuums.

A multiverse that itself sprang from nothing. Again, the same caveat applies to the word "nothing" as above.

A Universe/ multiverse that is uncreated.

A transcendental something (call it God if you like) that itself is an uncreated creator.

(I personally think the first two options are incoherent if one assumes that nothing is used as it is normally understood.)

While it might seem appropriate to apply the contribution of 12th century friar to the discussion, I can't help but think that you put far too much stock in a maxim when you apply it to the question of questions - "why something rather than nothing?".

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?

My bad! I assumed you took the Bible as proof of the existence of God. I apologise. Can I take it then that you do not accept the Bible as proof of the existence of God? I'm confused there.


I'm sure he could say anything he wants - but I fail to see the relevance here other than a bit of gratuitous trolling.

Zombrex wrote: »

Your constant I know more about the Bible than you stick does get very tiresome PDN.

You may genuinely believe that your years of Biblical study have given you keen insight into the nuances of the Bible that my Neanderthal atheist brain can't grasp.

But your study of the Bible suffers from a massive handy cap, you are forced by your own religious beliefs (that is suspect came long before you seriously studied the Old Testament) to interpret the Bible in a particular fashion, closed off to the simple and logical conclusions that those looking at it independently and unbiased can grasp on first reading.

So forgive me if I don't take your appeal to authority in this regard all that seriously.

Zombrex said it better than I ever could.

I did include a smiley to let you know that it was meant with some levity.

My point is that your study of the Bible and subsequent professions of Biblical fact, carry as much weight as Freds in that he doubtless believes his interpretations to be wholly correct also. The fact that you believe is of itself not proof of the validity of what you believe no more than my daughters belief in the existence of Snow White proves that she exists.

I think the accusation of trolling is unfair.

I agree - but of course Christians don't believe that the Universe sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing.

What then do Christians believe? I have not spent the time you have studying and so don't know.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not the point.

If the response had been Yes God approved of all these things back then but then after Jesus something changed and now he doesn't then fair enough. You might have an issue with why God appears to be changing his mind, but it would at least be consistent with the Bible.

No, it would be inconsistent with the Bible's revelation of God as eternal. But I do appreciate that it would be convenient for you if Christians framed their beliefs in ways that made them more easy for you to frame arguments against them.

Unfortunately the real world isn't like that.

Newsite was doing it when trying to assert that slavery in the Old Testament isn't actually like the slavery we would know from places like 17th century America.

Actually he was being historically accurate. The vast majority of historians agree that slavery in Israel was generally much closer to the indentured servitude entered into by Irish immigrants into America than to the forced slavery of black Africans. You might not like that fact - but your problems with historical facts aren't really our problem - are they?

Your constant I know more about the Bible than you stick does get very tiresome PDN.

You may genuinely believe that your years of Biblical study have given you keen insight into the nuances of the Bible that my Neanderthal atheist brain can't grasp.

But your study of the Bible suffers from a massive handy cap, you are forced by your own religious beliefs (that is suspect came long before you seriously studied the Old Testament) to interpret the Bible in a particular fashion, closed off to the simple and logical conclusions that those looking at it independently and unbiased can grasp on first reading.

If I engage in a debate about science, and if I drop a clanger, I wouldn't find it tiresome if people with formal qualifications in science pointed out my errors and referred to those (not just themselves) who have experience and qualifications in the field.

Then again, I don't have a compulsion to pick arguments on subjects where I am singularly ill-informed.

The Israelites raped their prisoners of war.

They took prisoners as wives against their will and had sex with them. This was considered normal and done with the blessing of their god.

]

So you say, but unfortunately we would need you to provide some support for that argument rather than just soapboxing.

Where does the Bible say these women were taken against their will? I would happily accept that as a historical fact if you demonstrated it.

I have the very satisfying advantage of viewing the Old Testament as just a book, and thus have not closed my mind to the most logical and obvious answers to these questions. There is no unacceptable answer. There is no answer that cannot be considered because it clashes with theological beliefs.

Again, your self-satisfaction is irrelevant. Unfortunately your mind is not nearly as open as you like to think. I approached the Bible as an unbeliever and changed my mind about it. Based on your interaction with anyone in this forum, I have never seen the slightest hint that you are able to change your mind or see alternative points of view.

So forgive me if I don't take your appeal to authority in this regard all that seriously.

No need for forgiveness. I'm not in the least bit worried by your dismissive attitude to scholarship.

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

What then do Christians believe? I have not spent the time you have studying and so don't know.

They believe that God is eternal. He didn't spring out of nothing because there was never a time when He didn't exist.

My bad! I assumed you took the Bible as proof of the existence of God. I apologise. Can I take it then that you do not accept the Bible as proof of the existence of God? I'm confused there.

No need for confusion. I don't think the Bible is proof of the existence of God, nor do most Christians that I know.

Simtech

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ockham's Razor isn't binding. It's a epistemological rule of thumb. Like any rule of thumb it's application depends first on the nature of the scenario it might be applied to.

It seems to me that you are left with are the following options.

A universe that "sprang from nothing" - were "nothing" may mean no-thing, or it might mean something, as in quantum vacuums.

A multiverse that itself sprang from nothing. Again, the same caveat applies to the word "nothing" as above.

A Universe/ multiverse that is uncreated.

A transcendental something (call it God if you like) that itself is an uncreated creator.

(I personally think the first two options are incoherent if one assumes that nothing is used as it is normally understood.)

While it might seem appropriate to apply the contribution of 12th century friar to the discussion, I can't help but think that you put far too much stock in a maxim when you apply it to the question of questions - "why something rather than nothing?".

I didn't bring Ockhams Razor into it, Philologos did above.

Might I also say, many here are obviously much better read than I.
Nonetheless, I'm here to learn, in spite of what some might think.

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence, so I gather. It doesn't seem a million miles away to me to imagine that if particles can pop in and out of existence, then perhaps the universe just popped into existence too, without the need for a creator. I would think it as valid a theory as any. A multiverse is beyond me. Not that I can't imagine it I just know of no reason for it that makes sense to me.

This makes, to my mind, more sense than "A transcendental something (call it God if you like) that itself is an uncreated creator." I don't understand the concept of an uncreated creator, could you explain?

Soul Winner

Simtech wrote: »

Using Ockhams' Razor, it is more likely that the Universe sprang from nothing than that it sprang from a creator who sprang from nothing. I'd like to believe there is a God, the creator, (it would give me hope that I don't have) but it doesn't make rational sense in my mind. There are fewer steps to it if the Universe sprang from nothing.

What evidence exists that shows how nothing can cause everything to pop into existence from nothing.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Actually he was being historically accurate. The vast majority of historians agree that slavery in Israel was generally much closer to the indentured servitude entered into by Irish immigrants into America than to the forced slavery of black Africans. You might not like that fact - but your problems with historical facts aren't really our problem - are they?

Nor is your need to make the Old Testament sound nicer than it really was or was meant to be understand as by those who wrote it.

The vast majority of historians agree that Jewish slavery in Israel was generally much closer to the indentured servitude entered into by Irish immigrants into America.

That was not the case for non-Jews such as prisoners of war.

Trying to pretend it was, or just mentioning this about slaves but purposefully not mentioning that there was a distinct difference between indentured servitude between Israelites and other non-Israelite slaves in the hopes that the person just won't bother to look it up themselves, is an pretty good example of the re-writing of the Old Testament I mentioned earlier.

As is asking the question how do we know these women didn't want to go with the soldiers, as if any historian seriously thinks any of these women were given the option.

PDN wrote: »

If I engage in a debate about science, and if I drop a clanger, I wouldn't find it tiresome if people with formal qualifications in science pointed out my errors and referred to those (not just themselves) who have experience and qualifications in the field.

They would tend to explain what you said wrong, not simply say that they know more about science than you cause they have studied it long than you have.

That is an advantage of things like science, it does rest on the authority (particularly self appointed authority), but rather on defined arguments that can be examined.

PDN wrote: »

So you say, but unfortunately we would need you to provide some support for that argument rather than just soapboxing.

Where does the Bible say these women were taken against their will? I would happily accept that as a historical fact if you demonstrated it.

Ah right, so we are going to play that little game. How unfortunately predictable, and from someone who puts so much emphasis on what the authors meant, not what we assert they should have meant. (like I said in the previous thread it does seem some what pointless debating this with you, but no one can say I didn't give it a shot)

The Bible says take the women find attractive for yourself they are your plunder to do with as you wish.

As you are well aware it strangely never mentions whether they women themselves actually wanted to go with the soldiers or not, that didn't seem to be much of a consideration for those writing the story.

Go figure.

What was that about you telling the rest of us to honestly approach the Bible and to be mindful of what the authors meant, not to assert based on our own belief what we think they should have meant.

Do you think the authors meant to imply this taking of plunder happened only with the willing women?

We both know you don't honestly think that, so I guess you are now in a bit of a bind, either admit that or misrepresent the meaning to win an argument with me. Which will it be ... oh this is so exciting ....

PDN wrote: »

Based on your interaction with anyone in this forum, I have never seen the slightest hint that you are able to change your mind or see alternative points of view.

I'll give you an example right now. I used to beat Christians with the Jesus quote I come not to bring peace but the sword (still a fav among the newer non-Christians who come to this forum, ah the naivety of the young).

Of course it is easy to see now that the message was not that Jesus was preaching violence, the sword is a metaphor for forcing people to face up to the struggle they must wage in order to live as Jesus commands.

Another example, another example, oh yes. Didn't know about the New Testament passages to drop the Leviticus laws, which makes that little Internet meme (that even made it to The West Wing) about having the New York Giants executed for using a pig skin some what redundant. That was certainly an eye opener for me.

I could go on. Like I said the Bible is just a book to me. I have no greater interest in misrepresenting than I do mis-representing Star Wars.

Out of interest can you give any example of where an atheist on this forum has changed your mind about your understand of the Bible?

PDN wrote: »

No need for forgiveness. I'm not in the least bit worried by your dismissive attitude to scholarship.

Well good then, perhaps you can stop wasting large posts that do nothing more than assert your authority to tell me how I'm interpreting the Bible wrong based on your years of experience.

I only ask because I read all of them to see if you are actually making any valid or interesting points.

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

They believe that God is eternal. He didn't spring out of nothing because there was never a time when He didn't exist.

I hope you can see the difficulty I'm having with some of the concepts in this forum.

[/QUOTE]
No need for confusion. I don't think the Bible is proof of the existence of God, nor do most Christians that I know.[/QUOTE]

What then do you/they take as the basis for this belief. Please don't say faith because there is no rationale there. That implies that the Bible is irrelevant to the core belief in God and that I should believe for no reason. Why should I even read the Bible then, obviously I've not.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

What evidence exists that shows how nothing can cause everything to pop into existence from nothing.

You know that already. You just reject that a zero point field is "nothing", but ignore that it was the "nothing" the scientists were talking about when they said the universe sprang from nothing.

Simtech

Soul Winner wrote: »

What evidence exists that shows how nothing can cause everything to pop into existence from nothing.

See my post above your last. I could obviously just ask what evidence is there of God having done it, we would simply go around in circles. If you seriously wish me to provide evidence, I shall try but then you must do the same.

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

I hope you can see the difficulty I'm having with some of the concepts in this forum.

Absolutely. It is difficult for finite man to grasp concepts of an infinite God.

What then do you/they take as the basis for this belief. Please don't say faith because there is no rationale there.

Ok, now we're talking 'basis' rather than 'proof'. That's an improvement.

Christian faith in God is generally based on a number of factors, of which the Bible is one. Others are practical experience, instances of answered prayer, and the testimony of other people who we trust.

Fanny Cradock

Simtech wrote: »

This makes, to my mind, more sense than "A transcendental something (call it God if you like) that itself is an uncreated creator." I don't understand the concept of an uncreated creator, could you explain?

I'm afraid I can't explain what an uncreated creator is - certainly with nothing approaching the same level of erudition and intelligence that the likes of Aquinas, Plato and Plantinga etc. managed. Other than God, or possibly an eternal past universe, I can't name any uncreated things that would be the basis of an answer.

Can you explain to me how material existence comes from nothing?

Incidentally, if you want to know more about the fundamentals of Christianity then I recommend you start with this series.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Well good then, perhaps you can stop wasting large posts that do nothing more than assert your authority to tell me how I'm interpreting the Bible wrong based on your years of experience.

Not much point in having a diuscussion when you post untrue stratements like that.

What I generally do is try to point out a number of possible options or interpretations. This is how theology and biblical studies works. We look at possible options and try to weigh up the balances of probability. However, we try to keep an open mind in case we're wrong.

The problem, of course, when atheists launch on a crusade to prove contradictions in the Bible, is that they are ideologically committed to one particular interpretation (which, quite coincidentally of course, always seems to be the one that shows Christianity in a negative light). Then we end up with the absurd scenario where they loudly insist that their interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong. And, if I point out that biblical scholars disagree with you, then you get all defensive that I'm boasting about my qualifications, or you launch on one of your tirades about theology being a nonsense subject.

The vast majority of historians agree that Jewish slavery in Israel was generally much closer to the indentured servitude entered into by Irish immigrants into America.

That was not the case for non-Jews such as prisoners of war.

I know it wasn't, but these debates are usually precipitated by atheists who come on to the forum and start banging on about every reference to slavery that they can find on google.

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about POWs in the Ancient Near East if you wish.

As you are well aware it strangely never mentions whether they women themselves actually wanted to go with the soldiers or not, that didn't seem to be much of a consideration for those writing the story.

No, it doesn't mention it - but that doesn't stop you from deciding that you know the answer anyway, does it? I'm happy to admit that I don't know.

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

Absolutely. It is difficult for finite man to grasp concepts of an infinite God.

Ok, now we're talking 'basis' rather than 'proof'. That's an improvement.

Christian faith in God is generally based on a number of factors, of which the Bible is one. Others are practical experience, instances of answered prayer, and the testimony of other people who we trust.

Proof can be defined as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I fail to see how this differs from basis for belief.

How did I know you'd come straight back to faith, which I see as blind faith. Earlier you held that I "should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?" Are you not now doing exactly that? It's the book, the people who told you so and answered prayers is it not?

Simtech

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't explain what an uncreated creator is - certainly with nothing approaching the same level of erudition and intelligence that the likes of Aquinas, Plato and Plantinga etc. managed. Other than God, or possibly an eternal past universe, I can't name any uncreated things that would be the basis of an answer.

Can you explain to me how material existence comes from nothing?

Incidentally, if you want to know more about the fundamentals of Christianity then I recommend you start with this series.

See my post #699 re the vacuum state.

I will start with that series though I reserve the right to be unswayed. If I end up reading the Bible because of you people, I'll not be happy.

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

Proof can be defined as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I fail to see how this differs from basis for belief.

Proof is something that is conclusive. A basis for belief means that we weigh up the available evidence and say that, on the balance of probability, we believe A rather than B.

I don't actually know any Christians who claim to have proof that God exists (although no doubt such a person actually exists - probably somewhere in Alabama or Mississippi).

How did I know you'd come straight back to faith, which I see as blind faith.

Possibly because you are labouring under a misapprehension as to the nature of faith.

Faith is not blind faith. It is a belief based on evidence which leads one to a certain conclusion, but falling short of conclusive proof.

If you hold false stereotypes about other people then it's easy to find confirmation for your stereotypes everywhere you look. Racists do it all the time.

Earlier you held that I "should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?" Are you not now doing exactly that? It's the book, the people who told you so and answered prayers is it not?

No, I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying that the Bible is one piece of evidence which, along with others, has led me to a particular conclusion.

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

However, we try to keep an open mind in case we're wrong.

The problem, of course, when atheists launch on a crusade to prove contradictions in the Bible, is that they are ideologically committed to one particular interpretation (which, quite coincidentally of course, always seems to be the one that shows Christianity in a negative light). Then we end up with the absurd scenario where they loudly insist that their interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong.

Or could it be the problem is that when Christians launch a crusade (never happened before....oh wait... :rolleyes:) to prove the truth in their belief "they are ideologically committed to one particular interpretation (which, quite coincidentally of course, always seems to be the one that shows" atheism " in a negative light). Then we end up with the absurd scenario where they loudly insist that their interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong.

Sorry but it stuck out like a sore thumb.

Fanny Cradock

Simtech wrote: »

Proof can be defined as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I fail to see how this differs from basis for belief.

How did I know you'd come straight back to faith, which I see as blind faith. Earlier you held that I "should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?" Are you not now doing exactly that? It's the book, the people who told you so and answered prayers is it not?

No, we are asserting that the Bible is evidence of God, his nature and his involvement in creation. The Greek word generally used in the NT for our word faith is pistis, which means the trustworthiness or reliability of things like concepts and people. What you are describing is the Richard Dawkins notion of faith - one where there is no possibility that faith in something or someone can be informed by evidence. (John Lennox briefly discusses faith, blind faith, and reason here). If this is what you believe then so be it. It does, however, make future discussion rather futile.

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

Or could it be the problem is that when Christians launch a crusade (never happened before....oh wait... :rolleyes:) to prove the truth in their belief "they are ideologically committed to one particular interpretation (which, quite coincidentally of course, always seems to be the one that shows" atheism " in a negative light). Then we end up with the absurd scenario where they loudly insist that their interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong.

I think you're rather missing the point. Most Christians don't have any compulsion to try to prove atheism wrong, and if we did we wouldn't have to labour to try to find a particular interpretation of the Bible to do so.

Which might explain why you're the one coming to the Christianity Forum trying to argue with us?

Sorry but it stuck out like a sore thumb.

Don't worry, we're used to the same tired old jibes. Still, it would be nice to hear an original one now and again.

Simtech

PDN wrote: »

Proof is something that is conclusive. A basis for belief means that we weigh up the available evidence and say that, on the balance of probability, we believe A rather than B.

I don't actually know any Christians who claim to have proof that God exists (although no doubt such a person actually exists - probably somewhere in Alabama or Mississippi).


Possibly because you are labouring under a misapprehension as to the nature of faith.

Faith is not blind faith. It is a belief based on evidence which leads one to a certain conclusion, but falling short of conclusive proof.

If you hold false stereotypes about other people then it's easy to find confirmation for your stereotypes everywhere you look. Racists do it all the time.

No, I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying that the Bible is one piece of evidence which, along with others, has led me to a particular conclusion.

So if I compare you to Fred Phelps, I'm trolling gratuitously but if you thinly veil a comparison of me and a rascist..............? If I wanted to maintain my stereotypes, I would hardly come here where they might be challenged.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The problem, of course, when atheists launch on a crusade to prove contradictions in the Bible, is that they are ideologically committed to one particular interpretation (which, quite coincidentally of course, always seems to be the one that shows Christianity in a negative light). Then we end up with the absurd scenario where they loudly insist that their interpretation is correct and all the others are wrong. And, if I point out that biblical scholars disagree with you, then you get all defensive that I'm boasting about my qualifications, or you launch on one of your tirades about theology being a nonsense subject.

Have you actually pointed out scholars that disagree that these women were raped? I must have missed that.

PDN wrote: »

I know it wasn't, but these debates are usually precipitated by atheists who come on to the forum and start banging on about every reference to slavery that they can find on google.

I'm perfectly happy to have a discussion about POWs in the Ancient Near East if you wish.

I thought that was what we were discussing, but ok.

Do you accept that these passages instruct (through God) the Israelites to take from captured prisoners of war (or "plunder") woman as wives, do you accept that the women involved in all likelihood had no choice in the matter and that the Bible instructs the soldiers to wait a period and then have marital relations (ie sex) with the women irrespective of the woman's feelings?

That this is the most plausible and consistent interpretation of the meaning of these passages irrespective of any theological troubles that such an interpretation might cause?

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't mention it - but that doesn't stop you from deciding that you know the answer anyway, does it? I'm happy to admit that I don't know.

Of course you are.

Do you accept that the most likely and logical interpretation of these passages given the culture that they arose in, was that the willingness of the women involve to participate in any of this was not a concern to those giving the instruction?

Or to put it another way, isn't the most consistent secular interpretation (leaving aside issues of whether God would or wouldn't do this) is that the Bible is saying take woman as the spoils of war, marry them and have sex with them if you want to, if you desire them?

PDN

Simtech wrote: »

So if I compare you to Fred Phelps, I'm trolling gratuitously but if you thinly veil a comparison of me and a rascist..............? If I wanted to maintain my stereotypes, I would hardly come here where they might be challenged.

I was pointing out the nature of stereotypes. Sorry if you were offended. Rephrase it as a presumption that Scousers are thieves or something else if you wish.

Stereotypes cut both ways. I would be equally dismissive of any Christian who made lazy stereotypical assumptions about atheists.

Fanny Cradock

Simtech wrote: »

See my post #699 re the vacuum state.

And we then come down to the nub of the matter. A quantum vacuum - with it's fields, fluctuations and particles that pop into and out of existence - doesn't sound like nothing to me. (And here I define nothing as nothingness or no-thing.) Quantum vacuums seem to be an extension of existence, not evidence of nothingness.

Soul Winner

Simtech wrote: »

Proof can be defined as evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. I fail to see how this differs from basis for belief.

How did I know you'd come straight back to faith, which I see as blind faith. Earlier you held that I "should address that to someone who has claimed that the Bible is proof of the existence of God?" Are you not now doing exactly that? It's the book, the people who told you so and answered prayers is it not?

Belief in God is a proper basic belief, its as provable as you proving to me that other minds other than your own exist. Try proving to yourself that other minds exist other than you own and let me know how you get on. You cannot prove it, you assume it and proceed in life from there, that's whats known as a proper basic belief. Same for belief in God.

Looking at the world just through our own senses we are not being irrational to assume that it was not the result of chance but that it was designed by a Mind for a purpose. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins will admit that it at least gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

We believe that the Bible gives us an insight into the God that we already intuitively believe exists just by simply looking at the universe we live in. One gets to know the ways of this God by trying to live the life He would have us live here and now as revealed in the New Testament. This results in direct experience of this God and only through direct experience of a person can we really get to know a person. Try living with someone for a year and you'll know what I mean.

Now what's the problem?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Have you actually pointed out scholars that disagree that these women were raped? I must have missed that.

No, just as I didn't make a long post claiming that I was an authority on whether they were raped or not. That's where making false claims about other posters gets you - muddies the waters unnecessarily.

What I did refer to was your hilarious howler that biblical Hebrew doesn't have words for sex or intercourse, so therefore to take someone as a wife really means to rape them.

Do you accept that these passages instruct (through God) the Israelites to take from captured prisoners of war (or "plunder") woman as wives, do you accept that the women involved in all likelihood had no choice in the matter and that the Bible instructs the soldiers to wait a period and then have marital relations (ie sex) with the women irrespective of the woman's feelings?

Can you cite what passage you're actually talking about? Then I'll gladly discuss it with you.

Simtech

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, we are asserting that the Bible is evidence of God, his nature and his involvement in creation. The Greek word generally used in the NT for our word faith is pistis, which means the trustworthiness or reliability of things like concepts and people. What you are describing is the Richard Dawkins notion of faith - one where there is no possibility that faith in something or someone can be informed by evidence. (John Lennox briefly discusses faith, blind faith, and reason here). If this is what you believe then so be it. It does, however, make future discussion rather futile.

Ok, I apologise for the "blind faith" comment, it was wrong given that Christians believe the evidence for their faith.

I was going to say I have faith in my wife, John Lennox got there first.:)

It would be disrespectful for me to continue without reading the Bible, so I will attempt to do so. I will first go through the series you highlighted.

I have enjoyed the debate thus far. Thank you all!

Simtech

Soul Winner wrote: »

Now what's the problem?

The problem is mine, I can't decide whether or not to believe.
I would have thought that was obvious.