Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The historical Jesus is widely regarded as having existing some 2000 years ago - and obviously this doesn't just include Christians. If you want unbiased sources that claim that he never existed then you wont find them because the claim in and of itself uses special pleading.

Dan Barker is another one who apparently denies the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. He's quite popular in certain atheist circles - though I can't imagine why. You can watch him throw an extraordinary hissy fit in a debate entitled Was Jesus a Myth (at about 24 minutes in). He objected to his written work being critiqued, specifically his writings that promoted Jesus as myth.

Again no one is denying the historical Jesus , I am looking for credibile historians as sources for either side of the question. That fact is most non-christians just don't care. This guy has is own ax to grind, makes some valid points though. But consistency tells me to ignore him.

I am looking for credible non biased sources for Jesus the God.

marienbad

By the way PDN and ISAW , I think I asked earlier -

On the mentioning rape in the bible, where does it mention condom in the bible ?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

You keep conflating the two Jesus's , the historical Jesus and the God Jesus. I am not denying the historical Jesus.

I am still waiting on unbiased sources for the God Jesus, documents that have a vested interests don't count.

Presumably if a document was unearthed that be counted as evidence towards Jesus' divinity you would consider it a biased source and therefore unreliable. What exactly are you looking for?

Please consider the possibility that in setting your "vested interest" criteria you are actually displaying your own bias.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

By the way PDN and ISAW , I think I asked earlier -

On the mentioning rape in the bible, where does it mention condom in the bible ?

It doesn't. The Bible doesn't mention condoms.

What a strange question?

Of course the Bible mentions rape on a number of occasions. It doesn't command it, but it refers to it.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

By the way PDN and ISAW , I think I asked earlier -

On the mentioning rape in the bible, where does it mention condom in the bible ?

That is quite a bizzare question.
I'm assuming ( pardon my leap of prediction) you refer to Church policies about condoms or contraception or abortion not being mentioned in the Bible.

Nor does it mention nukes, WMD, automatic rifles, electrocution, gas chambers etc. but Christians interpret Christ's views on the matter.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Again no one is denying the historical Jesus ,

In spite of the impossibility ( excuse my pedantry) of you being incapable in speaking for "nobody" I think you may mean you don't deny it. You have already been shown people do deny a historical Jesus.

I am looking for credibile historians as sources for either side of the question.

And you have been given references. Few vpice doubt on the historicity of Jesus except fundamentalist anti Christians with their own agenda. It isnt a question of "balance" no more than "The Earth is flat" is an issue of "let us see both sides" ( no pun intended:)).

That fact is most non-christians just don't care. This guy has is own ax to grind, makes some valid points though. But consistency tells me to ignore him.

The fact that you don't care or ignore that 1+1=2 won't change the fact that it does.

I am looking for credible non biased sources for Jesus the God.

Then you are looking into Christology not historicity.
And I already told you if you are off into a "prove God exists" issue then I'm not following you there.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

That is quite a bizzare question.
I'm assuming ( pardon my leap of prediction) you refer to Church policies about condoms or contraception or abortion not being mentioned in the Bible.

Nor does it mention nukes, WMD, automatic rifles, electrocution, gas chambers etc. but Christians interpret Christ's views on the matter.

So interpretation does come into to it then, and any reasonable interpretation of the disputed passage would agree that it is indeed rape.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

So interpretation does come into to it then, and any reasonable interpretation of the disputed passage would agree that it is indeed rape.

Interpretation comes into every part of life - from science to history to personal relationships to referring a match. As for what is considered reasonable, it depends who is making the decision, no? And that is why there are going to be a number of people who don't find your interpretation reasonable.

What we should be asking is how the Israelites understand the law. Not how you or me understand it so far removed from the events. I personally have no idea of the answer to this. PDN - any ideas/ sources?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What we should be asking is how the Israelites understand the law. Not how you or me understand it so far removed from the events. I personally have no idea of the answer to this. PDN - any ideas/ sources?

I think it would be rather difficult to produce any sources from 1300 BC proving a negative. What kind of source would be sufficient to convince atheists that a passage in which rape isn't mentioned isn't talking about rape?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

I think it would be rather difficult to produce any sources from 1300 BC proving a negative. What kind of source would be sufficient to convince atheists that a passage in which rape isn't mentioned isn't talking about rape?

Could you give me the verse in question again? I'd like to study it for myself.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

So interpretation does come into to it then, and any reasonable interpretation of the disputed passage would agree that it is indeed rape.

Not at all, unless you're redefining 'reasonable' to mean 'one that suits marienbad's agenda'.

Or maybe I'm missing a 'spirit'?

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Presumably if a document was unearthed that be counted as evidence towards Jesus' divinity you would consider it a biased source and therefore unreliable. What exactly are you looking for?

Please consider the possibility that in setting your "vested interest" criteria you are actually displaying your own bias.

Absolutely not Fanny, I am applying the same standards that would apply to any historical discussion ( or indeed any discussion). For example ISAW mentioned the Japanese version of Pearl harbour versus the American version of Pearl Harbour. Of course there is only one version and that can never be truly known, but by study of all primary and secondary sources and publication and discussion to and fro and the passage of time we can begin to approximate the truth, but it is a never ending process , incorporating more information as it becomes available.

And finally nothing is sacred. All is subject to change if the evidence indicates so.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Could you give me the verse in question again? I'd like to study it for myself.

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Not at all, unless you're redefining 'reasonable' to mean 'one that suits marienbad's agenda'.

Or maybe I'm missing a 'spirit'?

I will resist the obvious smart alec reply and ask you this PDN- is consent required for marriage ?

tommy2bad

What kind of source would be sufficient to convince atheists that a passage in which rape isn't mentioned isn't talking about rape?

While the word 'rape' isn't used, the fact that rules were made to deal with the situation kinda proves rape was happening. It's the exception proves the rule. What is interesting is that the Israelites had to deal with the situation and made rules to limit harm. From their point of view anyway.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

Absolutely not Fanny, I am applying the same standards that would apply to any historical discussion ( or indeed any discussion). For example ISAW mentioned the Japanese version of Pearl harbour versus the American version of Pearl Harbour. Of course there is only one version and that can never be truly known, but by study of all primary and secondary sources and publication and discussion to and fro and the passage of time we can begin to approximate the truth, but it is a never ending process , incorporating more information as it becomes available.

And finally nothing is sacred. All is subject to change if the evidence indicates so.

Thank you. But tell me something that every secondary level student isn't already aware of. I asked you what type of historical evidence you are looking for.

PDN

tommy2bad wrote: »

While the word 'rape' isn't used, the fact that rules were made to deal with the situation kinda proves rape was happening. It's the exception proves the rule. What is interesting is that the Israelites had to deal with the situation and made rules to limit harm. From their point of view anyway.

The rules were made to deal with a situati on where someone who would normally be considered ineligible as a wife (a pagan foreigner) could become an Israelite's wife.

Where is the exception, and what is the exception supposed to be to?

Btw, for what it's worth I think rape probably did take place. Rape occurs in every society and culture - because human nature is pretty rotten. That, of course, is not the point. The point is that certain atheists are claiming that God somehow commanded rape (even in a passage where it isn't mentioned).

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

I will resist the obvious smart alec reply and ask you this PDN- is consent required for marriage ?

No, and neither is rape required for marriage.

The passage in question neither says that consent was required, or that it wasn't. In fact, come to think of it, I've mentioned on this forum several times that I'm married. But I've never mentioned that my wife gave her consent. I do hope you haven't been presuming that I'm a rapist.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

No, and neither is rape required for marriage.

The passage in question neither says that consent was required, or that it wasn't. In fact, come to think of it, I've mentioned on this forum several times that I'm married. But I've never mentioned that my wife gave her consent. I do hope you haven't been presuming that I'm a rapist.

But marriage requires consent does it not ?

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

I'll read around it further - but the bit that troubles me is the unspoken part in between the following lines -

a) ...you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife

b) XXX?

c) If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

I would think it realistic to assume that in the time it might take for the new husband to reject his new wife (weeks or months ) that the marriage bed would have been consecrated, so to speak. If the woman did not want to have sex - and here I am talking about resisting the husband's amorous advances as opposed to viewing them as a necessary consequence of her new life - then what do we call this? Again, I'm wondering what rights the woman had to say no?

Think of a single straight road that stretched on for infinity. On either side lies a footpath. No traffic ever passes. No bridges, tunnels or crossings exist. You are the sole pedestrian on this road and you wish to cross but it is illegal to j-walk. A sign of rules on the other side of the road are written for those who people do get to the other side. Is this not tacitly encouraging people to break the law? (Terrible analogy, I know.)

Is the dishonouring spoken of in the last verse not in relation to a woman who is not a virgin and has been rejected by her husband?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

But marriage requires consent does it not ?

It does today, in Western societies anyway.

For much of history, in many cultures, arranged marriages have been the norm.

marienbad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thank you. But tell me something that every secondary level student isn't already aware of. I asked you what type of historical evidence you are looking for.

The same as for every other event Fanny , I don't understand your question ? letters , documents ,references, memoirs, artifacts, what else do you think I mean ?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think it realistic to assume that in the time it might take for the new husband to reject his new wife (weeks or months ) that the marriage bed would have been consecrated, so to speak. If the woman did not want to have sex - and here I am talking about resisting the husband's amorous advances as opposed to viewing them as a necessary consequence of her new life - then what do we call this? Again, I'm wondering what rights the woman had to say no?

I wonder too. Maybe she had the right to say 'No' - maybe she didn't. I allow for either interpretation (unlike those who insist that they know, when they quite obviously don't).

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I wonder too. Maybe she had the right to say 'No' - maybe she didn't. I allow for either interpretation (unlike those who insist that they know, when they quite obviously don't).

so do you allow that if she did not consent she may be subject to rape ?

As for those that insist that they know ! I think you can number yourself chief among them PDN. After all it is you who is stating catagorically that no rape is sanctioned .

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

It does today, in Western societies anyway.

For much of history, in many cultures, arranged marriages have been the norm.

are you seriously saying that these were ''arranged'' marriages, more a case of to the victor belong the spoils I would have thought.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

so do you allow that if she did not consent she may be subject to rape ?

Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. That old clarity issue again!

If you meant to say, "Do you allow that one possible interpretation of that passage is that those who did not consent were forced to marry?" Then, yes, I have stated several times that either interpretation is equally possible.

If you rather meant to say, "Do you allow that any women who did not consent to marriage were forced to marry?" Then, no, I see no reason (other than an ideological agenda) why that interpretation should be favoured over the other possibility.

As for those that insist that they know ! I think you can number yourself chief among them PDN.

That is a falsehood. I have stated all along that there are two equally plausible interpretations. You, in case you've forgotten, are one of the culprits who insists that there is only one possible interpretation - going so far as to label anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being unreasonable and irrational.

After all it is you who is stating catagorically that no rape is sanctioned .

I love the way that those who are being dogmatic try to pin that accusation on someone who is perfectly happy to admit that two plausible interpretations exist.

No, I'm stating that there is no categorical sanction of rape. There is a clear distinction between the two positions.

If two plausible interpretations exist for a passage, then it is plainly dishonest to assert one over the other. Therefore it is wrong to assert that the Bible sanctions rape when a perfectly plausible alternative interpretation exists.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

are you seriously saying that these were ''arranged'' marriages, more a case of to the victor belong the spoils I would have thought.

No, I never said that they were arranged marriages - and I don't think anyone who speaks English as a first language could possibly make the mistake of assuming that I did.

You asked me a general question (whether marriage requires consent).
I gave you a general answer (marriage does not always require consent - as, for example, in arranged marriages).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight (aka Zombrex) has made assertions that the Bible commanded rape. I pointed out that the passages he was quoting had a perfectly plausible interpretation where no rape is involved. He has offered no reason, other than his preference that it be so, why his interpretation is the correct one.

Er, no lets try that again shall we.

You stated that the women might have freely gone with the men to avoid starving to death and thus it cannot be said that these were forced marriages. This is not what one would call a perfectly plausible explanation, it in fact is ridiculous. While it is perfectly possible that some of the women might have chosen this, there is no indication in the Bible stories at all that the soldiers were expected to take this into consideration. The idea that all the women choose this is absurd.

You are of course able to hold any position you like (just like people are able to hold that homosexual acts are not condemned in the Bible as sin, and that Jesus never existed), but simply because you hold it doesn't make it plausible.

You have interestingly refused to defend this position, stating that you are not asserting it is the correct interpretation but simply the one that makes the most sense to you and thus there is no onus on you to defend it.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Your wording is somewhat ambiguous. That old clarity issue again!

If you meant to say, "Do you allow that one possible interpretation of that passage is that those who did not consent were forced to marry?" Then, yes, I have stated several times that either interpretation is equally possible.

If you rather meant to say, "Do you allow that any women who did not consent to marriage were forced to marry?" Then, no, I see no reason (other than an ideological agenda) why that interpretation should be favoured over the other possibility.


That is a falsehood. I have stated all along that there are two equally plausible interpretations. You, in case you've forgotten, are one of the culprits who insists that there is only one possible interpretation - going so far as to label anyone who disagrees with your interpretation as being unreasonable and irrational.


I love the way that those who are being dogmatic try to pin that accusation on someone who is perfectly happy to admit that two plausible interpretations exist.

No, I'm stating that there is no categorical sanction of rape. There is a clear distinction between the two positions.

If two plausible interpretations exist for a passage, then it is plainly dishonest to assert one over the other. Therefore it is wrong to assert that the Bible sanctions rape when a perfectly plausible alternative interpretation exists.

Then do you accept that any of those women that did not consent to be married but were forced into it were raped ? Is that a plausible interpretation ?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, no lets try that again shall we.

You stated that the women might have freely gone with the men. This is not what one would call a perfectly plausible explanation, it in fact is ridiculous.

Not at all. I realise you have an exalted idea of your ability to interpret Scripture and of your knowledge of Ancient Near East culture. However, those of us who don't share that opinion of your talents will need something more than a bald assertion that any interpretation other than your own is ridiculous.

You are of course able to hold any position you like (just like people are able to hold that homosexual acts are not condemned in the Bible as sin, and that Jesus never existed), but simply because you hold it doesn't make it plausible.

Aw, have you left over red herrings from your Christmas Dinner? How nice.

You have interestingly refused to defend this position, stating that you are not asserting it is the correct interpretation but simply the one that makes the most sense to you and thus there is no onus on you to defend it.

Actually I stated some reasons why I think it is the more likely to be correct (the foremost of which was the total lack of evidence, other than your desire for it to be so, to support your alternative). I am certainly willing to discuss the subject more with any honest poster.