Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 04-22-2004, 02:53 AM

JtB, that may instead have been some origin myth intended to justify giving a seemingly paltry gift.

Something like the story of Prometheus and Zeus on which sort of offerings Zeus will accept. Prometheus gave Zeus two choices, both camouflaged with skin:
1. All the nice meat
2. All the icky parts - bones, guts, etc.

Zeus chose #2, and so that's why he gets offered all the icky parts while his worshippers get to eat all the nice meat.

Ed · 04-22-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew J

This is very cute Ed.

However, God did not intervene or say don't do that after the first one since MANY sacrifices took place. To me, you're just embarassing yourself with this remark.

See my post to Jack above.

Ed · 04-22-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Quote:
"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

Ed: God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.

jtb: Rape wasn't mistreatment. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a man cannot rape his wife. Nowhere in the Bible is a woman's consent considered relevant, except when determining whether a married woman is guilty of adultery by cooperating with her rapist.

No, if you include the NT marital rape is plainly forbidden by the verses that say that a man is to love his wife like his own body. And also the Golden Rule of course. But even in the OT rape was plainly mistreatment due to the belief that women are in the image of God just as man is and therefore entitled to respect. Though I do admit that rape was not considered as serious in ancient times because everyone was just trying to survive ie everyone was on the edge of death.

Quote:

jtb: You cannot apply modern moral codes to the ancient Hebrews. Try again.

I am not, I am applying the biblical codes to the hebrews.

Quote:

Ed: As far the possibility that she would desire to stay married you need to learn more about ancient history. In ancient times single women without families were pretty much under a death sentence or an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution. IOW having a husband in ancient times was the main source of security for women. So they did not have the option to be as choosy as a 21st century western woman that lives in a society with a decent police force.

jtb: Why should she CARE about being "an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution"? The alternative, being forced to marry the murderer of her friends and relatives, is MUCH WORSE than either of these things!

YOU need to learn more about WOMEN, Ed. Before you get yourself into deep, deep trouble.

Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior. It would be like killing the Nazi father of girl that had married a jew. She would be very sad but would eventually understand why it happened.

Quote:

Ed: No, the scriptures plainly teach that women are created in the image of God just as men are. And are to be treated with all the respect that entails.

jtb: Nope.

Insults to Women in the Bible

I have dealt with most of those on that page in other threads and do not have time or inclination to rehash those at this time.

lpetrich · 04-22-2004, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

But even in the OT rape was plainly mistreatment due to the belief that women are in the image of God just as man is and therefore entitled to respect. ...

Something not directly evident -- women don't seem to be allowed to be important leaders.

Quote:

Though I do admit that rape was not considered as serious in ancient times because everyone was just trying to survive ie everyone was on the edge of death.

LOL.

Quote:

Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior.

I've yet to see any testimonials to that effect from any outside sources -- and not even in the Bible itself.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-23-2004, 02:04 AM

Quote:

No, if you include the NT marital rape is plainly forbidden by the verses that say that a man is to love his wife like his own body. And also the Golden Rule of course.

I have already pointed out elsewhere that the Golden Rule is of limited use here: many rapists manage to convince themselves that the rape is in the victim's best interest. "She said no, but she really meant yes".

YOU have used a similar argument, in claiming that exterminating a woman's relatives and then forcing her to marry the murderer of her relatives is "in her best interests".

There is also the obvious fact that you can't apply NT verses to OT times, because the NT had not yet been written.

Quote:

Due to the horrible treatment of women in Canaanite societies, these women could plainly see that hebrew society was far superior. It would be like killing the Nazi father of girl that had married a jew. She would be very sad but would eventually understand why it happened.

Wrong analogy, as we're discussing a Holocaust allegedly perpetrated by Jews.

There is no evidence that women in Caananite societies were treated "horribly". As YHWH was himself a Caananite deity, the treatment of women in most other Caananite societies was probably fairly similar.

Ed · 04-24-2004, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
As far the possibility that she would desire to stay married you need to learn more about ancient history. In ancient times single women without families were pretty much under a death sentence or an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution.

lp: Eviednce presented: {}

They didn't have a police force for one. Talk to your local history professor for more evidence.

Quote:

Ed: No, the scriptures plainly teach that women are created in the image of God just as men are.

lp: In the likeness of a male being???

God is not a male being, He is a spiritual being which is neither male nor female. However he does generally prefer to be refered to as He. Why? We don't really know but it could be that His relationship to us is most like the human relationship of children to father. We are made in his image in that we are persons.

Quote:

lp: Also, we are supposedly evil sinners -- is Mr. G. capable of committing sins?

No, see above what made in His image means.

Quote:

lp: Traditional Xtian doctrine often resembles Bipolar Disorder, and apologists like Ed find this split convenient. They can quote whichever polarity is convenient, and play dumb about the other polarity.

Evidence?

Quote:

Ed: And are to be treated with all the respect that entails. Also, only if God exists is there any real reason to treat women with respect and tenderness.

lp: Actually, one can easily deduce the opposite from the Bible.

Evidence?

Quote:

lp: And there are plenty of non-theological ethical theories that Ed seems unaware of.

And none of them are as objectively rational as Christianity's ethical system.

Quote:

lp: And the divine-command theory does not really tell us anything, as Plato recognized long ago in Euthyphro.

Christian ethics are not based on divine-command theory.

Quote:

Ed: If there is no God then evolution tells men they are stronger than women and therefore have the right to treat them anyway they want as long as they can get away with it.

lp: Excrement of the male bovine. "Evolution" is not a god. It does not command "Might Makes Right".

And I wonder if Ed is simply projecting his manner of ethical reasoning on evolutionary biology.

I didn't say evolution is a god. My point is that if there is no God then there is no objectively rational reason for not forcing your wife or girlfriend to have sex with you as long as you don't get caught. And in fact since evolution made us stronger than women there must be some reason why we are stronger so why not use it for things that will increase the survivability of our genes?

Quote:

Ed: All the so-called moral atrocities are the result of man's rebellion against God either as punishment for it or as a symptom of it. This IS the plain language of the bible.

lp: That's the same sort of "reasoning" the Nazis had used -- Jews are so unredeemably evil that they deserve to be exterminated -- even Jewish babies.

No, the Nazis reasoning was based on myth while the reasons I mentioned above are based on reality.

Quote:

lp: I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders."

No, genocide is the killing of people for who they are while God allowed the meteing out of capital punishment on evildoers.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-26-2004, 08:48 AM

Quote:

As far the possibility that she would desire to stay married you need to learn more about ancient history. In ancient times single women without families were pretty much under a death sentence or an obvious target for rape or involuntary prostitution.

lp: Evidence presented: {}

They didn't have a police force for one. Talk to your local history professor for more evidence.

Remind me again about how "morally advanced" the Hebrew society was. Single women should have been in no danger, right?

They certainly would have been safe in Celtic society, for example.

Quote:

Ed: All the so-called moral atrocities are the result of man's rebellion against God either as punishment for it or as a symptom of it. This IS the plain language of the bible.

lp: That's the same sort of "reasoning" the Nazis had used -- Jews are so unredeemably evil that they deserve to be exterminated -- even Jewish babies.

No, the Nazis reasoning was based on myth while the reasons I mentioned above are based on reality.

Evidence that Jewish beliefs are based on reality: { }

Quote:

lp: I find it depressing that Ed is so willing to defend genocide. Including killing whole populations of babies. I wonder if he has seriously thought through his positions, as opposed to taking an attitude of "I am chust followink orders."

No, genocide is the killing of people for who they are while God allowed the meteing out of capital punishment on evildoers.

Evidence that the slaughtered Amalekites were evildoers: { }

Evidence that they were slaughtered just for being Amalekites: the Bible says so.

Ed · 04-26-2004, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: Also read Deut. 21:14 in the NASB:

"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.

Let's sift through the various translations to settle this:
KJV: thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

NIV: You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her.

NKJV: you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.

NASB: you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.

Webster's: thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

Young's: thou dost not tyrannize over her, because that thou hast humbled her.

Darby's: thou shalt not treat her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.

ASV: thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.

RSV: you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

So, most translations agree that this "mistreatment" is selling into slavery, and none refer to rape as "mistreatment".

No, the hebrew can mean either mistreatment or treating as a slave. And mistreatment plainly can include rape given what we know about human nature. Also rape is similar to being a slave in that the woman is forced to do something against her will. Given this similarity I think mistreatment is the best translation because it can mean both in English.

Quote:

jtb: But what's this "humbling"? The word has two meanings in the Bible: you can "humble" yourself before God, or you can "humble" a woman by raping her.

Those are not meanings those are usages. The word for humble is used in those contexts more often than the one I am referring to but amount of usage does not mean it doesn't mean what I contend it does. There are many words in the bible that are only used in one instance and with a different usage from all the others.

Quote:

Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Eze 22:10 In thee have they discovered their fathers' nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution.

Eze 22:11 And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour's wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father's daughter.

Nowhere in the Bible is anyone "humbled" by having their relatives killed.

So you're making stuff up, as usual. Did you really expect that you wouldn't be caught doing this??

No, see above my explanation about word USAGE.

Jack the Bodiless · 04-27-2004, 01:28 AM

Quote:

No, the hebrew can mean either mistreatment or treating as a slave. And mistreatment plainly can include rape given what we know about human nature. Also rape is similar to being a slave in that the woman is forced to do something against her will. Given this similarity I think mistreatment is the best translation because it can mean both in English.

Slaughtering a woman's relatives and then forcing her to "marry" the murderer is ALSO plainly "mistreatment", Ed (and clearly much worse than rape). But that doesn't bother you, does it?

You are plainly incapable of assessing what is "mistreatment" and what is not. Your interpretations will always be based on whatever is expedient to preserve your crumbling worldview, not on cultural context or actual assessment of a woman's suffering.

Quote:

jtb: But what's this "humbling"? The word has two meanings in the Bible: you can "humble" yourself before God, or you can "humble" a woman by raping her.

Those are not meanings those are usages. The word for humble is used in those contexts more often than the one I am referring to but amount of usage does not mean it doesn't mean what I contend it does. There are many words in the bible that are only used in one instance and with a different usage from all the others.

It never has any other meaning, Ed.

You own interpretation is clearly self-refuting. "Humbling" is obviously an unpleasant experience: it is "mistreatment". Why should the Bible say "you should not mistreat her, because you have mistreated her"?

Mistreating her is OK, but mistreating her is not?

This makes no sense.

Quote:

Nowhere in the Bible is anyone "humbled" by having their relatives killed.

So you're making stuff up, as usual. Did you really expect that you wouldn't be caught doing this??

No, see above my explanation about word USAGE.

MY usage is entirely consistent with the cultural context. YOUR usage is entirely MADE UP because you don't like what the Bible actually says.

Ed, stop pretending that your interpretations stem from actual knowledge of the language and culture of the ancient Hebrews. It is apologetic fiction, nothing more. You're not fooling anyone.

Ed · 04-27-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

gl:What worries me about the horrendous stories in the bible that relate God as a murderous tyrant is that someone very close to me, who is Christian but by no means a "bible-basher" or biblical scholar, came to the exact same conclusions as Ed seems to have come to: since God is the supreme moral authority, anything God does must by definition be moral, even when what he does is clearly immoral.

Ed: How do you know they are "clearly immoral"? What objectively rational standard do you use to make such a judgement? If you don't have one then your comment is basically meaningless, ie like saying I don't like chocolate.

jtb: This is your "moral blankness" cutting in again. You are demonstrating greyline's point: you are unable to comprehend how these atrocities can possibly be wrong.

You failed to answer my question. I will take that as an unable to refute.

Quote:

jtb:And yet...
gl: My friend, a loving wife and mother and upstanding member of the community, has therefore convinced herself that it's acceptable for the invading Israelites to murder women and children, rape virgins etc. (To be honest, I doubt she thinks about it that much, but I asked her to.)

Ed: The Israelites never did those things, refer to my posts above.

jtb: Yes, they did. Even YOU cannot deny that the invading Israelites murdered women and children, and the notion that they didn't rape virgins is entirely non-Biblical.

Capital punishment is not murder. See Hebrews 10:26-27 and Romans 6:23.
See above where I explained the so-called rape passages.

Quote:

jtb: Here, your sense of "right and wrong" suddenly recovers, and you have problems imagining that the Biblical God would endorse such behavior.

Why the contradiction, Ed? What is the origin of your belief that SOME of the Bible's atrocities are wrong?

What contradiction and what atrocities?

Quote:

gl: She's suffering from a psychological discord that she can only resolve by ignoring common sense and human decency.

No wonder so many churches and Christians discount the embarrassing OT as imaginative stories "written by the victor", or ignore it all together.

Ed: How do you know when you are ignoring human decency?

jtb: ...And now you've "switched off" again. Suddenly you're pretending that it's impossible to judge the actions of the Biblical God: therefore anything God does is OK, and you're left with no grounds for assuming that Biblical rape or human sacrifice could possibly be wrong.

Until you answer on what basis you can judge His actions, your statements are meaningless.

Quote:

dx: the purpose of the sacrifice of the first born was not to remove sin either.

Ed: Well technically you are right for the human tithe, but all the others do and therefore my points stand unrefuted.

jtb: ...And here you're admitting that there WAS a "human tithe"!

Yes, but they were always redeemed, see above.

Quote:

jtb: Ed, I think it's becoming increasingly obvious that you KNOW that your worldview cannot survive. The cracks are widening, and it's time to be honest with yourself.

Ha ha ha, good one!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2004, 02:53 AM	#211
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	JtB, that may instead have been some origin myth intended to justify giving a seemingly paltry gift. Something like the story of Prometheus and Zeus on which sort of offerings Zeus will accept. Prometheus gave Zeus two choices, both camouflaged with skin: 1. All the nice meat 2. All the icky parts - bones, guts, etc. Zeus chose #2, and so that's why he gets offered all the icky parts while his worshippers get to eat all the nice meat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.