Ed

No, this plainly was not rape, if it had been rape then she WOULD have cried out. In this case humbled means disrespect or treat badly. He reduced her station in life from a wife to a prostitute.

Quote:

Ed: No, this was not rape, this was consensual adultery because she didn't cry out in a city, where there would be people to rescue her. NOGO:: The bible speaks of adultery here Leviticus 20:10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. The reason the word adultery is not used in Deut 22 is because this was a special case. It was uncertain whether there was consent. So the girl is put to death not for adultery but because she did not cry out. The man was put to death for rape because it may have been possible that the girl did not consent. If this had been clearly adultery then there would be no need for another law.

No, this was plainly consensual see above. If it was rape then she WOULD cry out, wouldn't you?

Quote:

ng: This is the way NIV translates it. NIV Deut 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death-the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. What follows, Ed, is to show you that divorce was not as easy as you say. Notice that Jesus says that divorce is only admitted for reason of unchastity Matthew 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is what Deut 24 is about. Deuteronomy 24:1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, Deut 21:14 mentions no particular reason for sending the girl away. It is not divorce because there was no marriage. Otherwise, Ed, you are saying that a man could marry a woman for a single night. A one night stand. She no longer pleases him in the morning and you have a divorce. Is this the morality of Dt21:14

I will concede that that is a possible interpretation except for the order of the verses, the order of the verses seem to imply that they get married first in verse 13. But it may not be in chronological order, ie she may have just lived in his house for a month to see if they were psychologically compatible and if not then she moved out, if she was, then they were married.

Ed

No, something being American is just a categorization based on a geographical location and abstract political concepts. Persons and things produced by persons that are intrinsically related to personhood such as personal relationships and personal communication are concepts related to an actual empirically existing entity, ie persons.

Quote:

jtb: ...And evolution IS undoubtedly a "sufficient cause" for the development of humans. Saying "no it isn't" won't get you anywhere.

Atheistic evolution is based on impersonal time plus chance, neither of which nor in combination has ever been empirically observed producing persons.

Quote:

Ed: What empirical evidence? Apes already have aspects of the personal but they are not fully personal. But there has never been observed an ape gaining the aspects of personhood that they lack. jtb: Don't use words such as "empirical" when you obviously don't know what they mean. A hominid fossil is empirical evidence. DNA analysis produces empirical evidence.

A hominid fossil is just empirical evidence that some apelike creature lived thousands of years ago. And DNA analysis is just empirical evidence that similar organsims have similar DNA. None of this is empirical evidence that macroevolution has occurred. Macroevolution is actually just a historical extrapolation.

Quote:

jtb: And it's been empirically shown that chimps possess near-human levels of consciousness and cognitive skills: with the exception of vocal skills, an adult chimp is roughly equivalent to a six-year-old child, and chimps can learn sign language. They are "persons". There is a campaign to officially recognize this fact by reclassifying them as genus Homo: that makes them human beings.

Six year olds can do abstract reasoning, chimps cannot. What are near-human levels of consciousness? Although chimps seem to use a very simple symbolic sign language, they have yet to be observed using syntax which is the foundation any true abstract language.

Quote:

Ed: No, not necessarily. If the term itself can mean age then there is definite possibility of overlap. Some scholars say that the morning and evening refer to the literal 24 hr day that initiates the creative age. Or it could be metaphorical for the beginning and ending of the age, these hebrew terms "morning and evening" when used conjunctively were often used metaphorically in ancient hebrew writings. jtb: You are contradicting yourself. If there are literal 24-hour days as separators (remember, this phrase is used between EACH creation day), there can be no overlap.

Well that is why I prefer the understanding that the term refers just to an age which more scholars believe is the case anyway.

Quote:

jtb: Incidentally, you haven't answered my question: WHY IS GOD GOOD?

He is good because His moral character is good.

Jack the Bodiless

The "relationship" is just a categorization. There is absolutely no physical difference between my personal walking stick and a "natural" stick.

Nor is there any empirically detectable "essence" that clearly makes a human being a "person" while a chimpanzee is not. It's just a label, like "American" is.

There is no "Law of Conservation of Personhood". There is no scientific or logical principle which prevents the evolution of "personhood".
God has never been empirically observed producing persons either. Therefore this cannot happen, right?
Hominid fossils are empirical evidence that a range of transitional forms between apes and humans existed.

And DNA analysis is evidence that humans and apes share much of the SAME DNA. This even includes genetic defects such as the "broken" gene for vitamin C synthesis and so forth: we share the same defects in our DNA.

This IS empirical evidence for the relationship. We have EVERYTHING that we should expect to have, and NOTHING that contradicts this.

If "similar creatures have similar DNA", then please explain why we are genetically CLOSER to ordinary fish (e.g. cod) than lampreys are. This is exactly the sort of counter-intuitive result that evolution predicts. As we are descended from fish, we have a more recent common ancestor with these fish than lampreys do: they branched off earlier.
You are wrong. Chimps are as capable of these things as human children are. They can handle abstract reasoning and syntax.
YET AGAIN you have refused to answer the question! This is the same non-answer you gave earlier!

WHY is his moral character "good"?

In other words:

WHY IS GOD GOOD?

If you cannot answer the question, then why not just ADMIT that there is no rational basis for morality in your worldview?

Jack the Bodiless

More on chimpanzees and abstract thought.

There is a test used by child psychologists which works like this:

The child watches Person A place a doll in one of several boxes. A then leaves the room, and the child watches Person B come in and move the doll to a different box, then leave.

Person A then returns, and the child is asked which box A will open to find the doll.

A young child will indicate the second box: they aren't yet capable of the degree of abstract thought needed to distinguish between what they know and what somebody else knows. An older child or an adult chimpanzee would indicate the first box.
This change would have been observed over time by successive generations of hominids: therefore it is false to claim that this has never been directly observed. You may claim that it hasn't been directly observed by modern scientists, but neither have many things accepted as fact (such as the formation of large volcanoes from flat ground by successive volcanic eruptions: I've used that example before). And, of course, no scientist has observed creation.

NOGO

Ed,

If 1 Sam 15:2 was not in the Bible you could still claim all of what you said. You have certainly not pointed to this verse to support your point of view. In fact you are totally ignoring it. That is the problem, Ed.

Why is this verse in the Bible?
Can you answer this, Ed, why did God inspire the writer to place the above verse in the Bible?
Please explain!

The conclusion is that you have a BIG problem with 1Sam15:2 and I understand why. It shows that Yahweh, the mythological god of the Israelites, was an immoral god because he ordered the death of thousands of people for something that happened 400 years before.
That is what this verse says.

1 Sam 15:2
... "I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.



I will answer this one in full shortly in another post. Nothing in Job points to afterlife, quite the opposite. As for David's son ... Yahweh killed him because David arranged to have a man killed in order to have his wife. The child was an illigimate product of an adulterous relation. The woman did not cry out and therefore they should both have been put to death according to the law. Instead Yahweh killed the innocent child to "punish" David. Another example of punishing the innocent children for the crimes of the parents.


It is amazing that you know exactly what Yahweh meant and it is often, as it is in this case, contrary to what the Bible actually says.

You are saying here that Yahweh can give a law and then ask that this law be broken. Where in the bible does it say "unless specifically commanded by God to do so" Are you saying that Deut. 24:16 is not a universal moral principle which applies to everybody including God?

Ed: "Deut 24:16 refers to the government of Israel"

Really!, Let's look at the context

Deut 24
14 "You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your countrymen or one of your aliens who is in your land in your towns.
15 "You shall give him his wages on his day before the sun sets, for he is poor and sets his heart on it; so that he will not cry against you to the LORD and it become sin in you.
16 "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.
17 "You shall not pervert the justice due an alien or an orphan, nor take a widow's garment in pledge.
18 "But you shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and that the LORD your God redeemed you from there; therefore I am commanding you to do this thing.
19 "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.


None of this sounds like instructions to governments. This is another of you creative distortions to justify the unjustifiable.


You are qualifying your statement here which opens the possibility that other elements justify the punishment. But Dt24:16 is stated as a general moral principle. The Bible does not qualify the statement as you do. If there are other elements which would make children guilty of something then that would be punishment for their own sins. This is not what Deut24:16 is about. Specifically Deut24:16 prohibits anyone from avenging themselves upon the children of people who have committed a crime. That is exactly what 2Sam 15 is all about, revenge.


So, Ed, you are saying that it was a prophecy.
Once again you ignore what the text actually says and invent what you think is a good story.

[30] saying, `If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
[31] Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

Once again, Ed, Jesus is saying that the Pharisees are
"TESTIFYING AGAINST themselves"
Why? Because
"you (the pharisees) are the sons of those who murdered the prophets"
This is all happened ... IN THE PAST.

[32] Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
[33] You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

"fill up" is in the present. No prophecy here.
Fill up what?
The measure of guilt of your fathers. PAST! No prophecy here.

Ed

Hello Bill, we have encountered each other before. I hope you are doing well. Your understanding of my point is not completely correct. While persons can produce other persons they can also produce those things that relate to the personal and things that make up aspects of the personal like personal relationships and personal communication.

Ed

This would only be true if macroevolution has occurred. The fossil record has shown itself not to be a friend of macroevolution.


No, in hebrew repetition of conjunctive phrases are often metaphorical. I think I will place greater weight on the words of a biblical scholar than on the words of a hyperskeptical atheist on an atheist discussion board.

No, as I stated before, from what we know about ancient genealogies the more correct translation should be "all SIGNIFICANT generations".

No, until he became the father of my great great grandfather, he was NOT my ancestor.

The mistreatment the verse is referring to is AFTER the killing of her family. You are partially correct, they probably didn't consider forcing captive women to marry soldiers as mistreatment, but they plainly DID consider rape mistreatment. Read verse in Deuteronomy about crying out in a city.

This is the end of part I of my response.

Jack the Bodiless

This statement is false. Nothing in the fossil record poses any problem whatsoever for macroevolution.
This is not "repetition of conjuntive phrases", as the phrase only appears ONCE per creation day. And the Hebrews used repetition for emphasis, not to indicate that something was metaphorical. You are choosing to believe fundamentalists who are constantly looking for excuses to dismiss awkward parts of the Bible as "metaphorical". Many Biblical scholars have labeled Biblical references to a flat Earth as "metaphorical". They have ALSO decreed that the entire Genesis creation story and all references to the Noachian Flood are "clearly metaphorical" due to the prose style used.

So, if Biblical scholars say that the Genesis creation and Flood stories are fiction: why don't you believe them, Ed?
No, we do NOT know this about ancient genealogies. This stuff is INVENTED, Ed. Furthermore, unless you can come up with the Aramaic word for "significant" that was omitted by the translators, then my accusation that you are LYING still stands.
Yes, he WAS your ancestor.

If he was NOT your ancestor, then why would he BECOME your ancestor when he fathered your great great grandfather, who was himself NOT your ancestor either?

This is pure nonsense, Ed. More invented crap to hide the fact that the Bible is fiction.
...Which has nothing to do with mistreatment at all. We're back where we started on this. Deuteronomy PROVES that rape is a crime against MEN, not WOMEN. It does not apply to ADULT SINGLE WOMEN. It is only illegal to rape a WIFE or FIANCEE of another MAN, or to rape a young DAUGHTER without paying compensation to her FATHER.

I have a suggestion for you, Ed.

Re-read every single post in this entire thread.

You are again bringing up arguments you have LOST.

winstonjen

Re-read every single post in this entire thread.

Unfortunately, that's not possible for Ed. It appears to me that his binary code would implode on himself if he tried to read more than one post at a time. Replying to them seems to be enough of a problem to him. Perhaps Ed V 2.0 will do better.

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, I'm becoming increasingly convinced of the "bot theory".

...By Ed's ongoing inability to answer the WHY IS GOD GOOD question, for instance. This appears to be a contingency not catered for by the programmers: a "God is good" program stub, a dead-end.

Eventually we'll find all the limits of the Eddian converstion tree: a list of meaningless one-line non-answers that will be endlessly repeated. I think we're close to that now. Every converstion topic quickly collapses to the same assertions endlessly repeated with no support whatsoever and in defiance of all logic. And even defiance of context in some cases, such as the Deuteronomy rape example above: nothing to do with the subject, just a "difficult rape question: refer to random Bible rape verse" command.