Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 11-21-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:


Hardly. Christianity is the only worldview that has a rational basis for caring about all of humanity and Christ has commanded us to do so. And Nazism is actually taking atheism to its logical conclusion. They were basically just acting on their feelings, they didnt like jews so they slaughtered them. Most modern atheists like all humans but since both actions are based on feelings, why are the actions of modern atheists any better than the actions of Nazis?

Hi Ed,

We have come full circle. Although you will not come out and say it, your definition of �rational� is distinctive. In your way of thinking an atheist that was committed to caring about all of humanity would not be �rational� simply because they did not believe in god. Perhaps you are correct that Nazis behavior was based on their feelings, but how is that any different from Christians? Isn�t it a Christian requirement that one accept Christ into one�s heart not just one�s mind? Ed your arguments might have some credibility if being a Christian really did make people behave morally. Look around you Ed, 85% of the US population claims to be Christian, yet it is mostly Christians who rob, steal, rape, kill and deceive. Christianity doesn�t work, it has never worked. All it creates is a platform from which the power hungry can control the populace. It has no place in a working constitutional democracy.

Starboy

Jack the Bodiless · 11-22-2002, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Hardly. Christianity is the only worldview that has a rational basis for caring about all of humanity and Christ has commanded us to do so.

Actually, nobody has an entirely rational basis for caring about all of humanity.

Why should a Christian care?

Because Jesus said so? Why obey Jesus? Desire for Heaven or fear of Hell? Why not fry in Hell?

Ultimately, you reach an emotional basis: a personal preference. "I want to live forever in Heaven" is an emotional reason: there is no reason why a totally rational, emotionless robot would desire such a thing.

We atheists also have emotional reasons for not wanting to live in a society without "civilized" moral values. But at least evolution gives us a rational explanation for why this emotion exists in us. We evolved as social animals dependent upon cooperation for survival.

The Christian equivalent is "uh, I guess God made us that way". They have no rational explanation of why God made us that way, or why God made us at all.

Ed · 11-24-2002, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Time for a reality check.

They rounded up all the captives.

They massacred ALL the men, including the fathers and brothers of these virgins.

They massacred ALL the non-virgin women, including the mothers and many of the sisters of these virgins.

They massacred ALL the virgins they didn't want for themselves.

Your last statement is false. There is no evidence that that occured.

Quote:

jtb:...Now for the kicker, Ed:

Do you think that the surviving virgins wanted to marry these murderers, and do you believe that they freely consented to sex afterwards?

Even the authors of the Bible were not THAT stupid. There is no mention of any requirement for consent. Those men took and RAPED those women. There is no attempt in the Bible to hide that fact.

No, see Deut. 21:14. In bold below. Of course at first they would not want to marry them but after time they will see that that is the most logical option given that single women in ancient times were in a very precarious situation. Also, they would have seen how Israel was a much more morally advanced society than most at the time and they would have seen evidence that Israel's god WAS God.

Quote:

jtb: Again you are projecting your non-Christian moral values onto the situation. Nowhere in the Bible is rape described as wrong. Biblical rape is ONLY a crime against men (the husbands or fathers of the victims): it is NEVER a crime against women.

No, see 2 Samuel 13:12.

Quote:

jtb: Are you married, Ed?

If so, do you have any surviving in-laws?

If you killed them, would your wife object at all?

And, unfortunately, you don't seem to understand what the difference actually IS. Hint: married men CAN rape their wives.

Married rape is also condemned see below and also in the new testament. The husband is to treat his wife like his own body. Also the golden rule applies.

14 "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.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-25-2002, 01:09 AM

Quote:

They massacred ALL the virgins they didn't want for themselves.

Your last statement is false. There is no evidence that that occured.

"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves". OK, so in this particular incident, they apparently wanted ALL the virgins for themselves (there are other massacres in the Bible where ALL the virgins are killed also). They were NOT spared out of kindness: they were "war booty".

Quote:

Numbers 31:32-35 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep, And threescore and twelve thousand beeves, And threescore and one thousand asses, And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

But even some of those were "wanted" only for use as human sacrifices:

Quote:

Numbers 31:37-41 And the LORD's tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen. And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and twelve. And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD's tribute was threescore and one. And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons. And Moses gave the tribute, which was the LORD's heave offering, unto Eleazar the priest, as the LORD commanded Moses

More on the fate of those virgins who were spared:

Quote:

Even the authors of the Bible were not THAT stupid. There is no mention of any requirement for consent. Those men took and RAPED those women. There is no attempt in the Bible to hide that fact.

No, see Deut. 21:14. In bold below.

OK, let's look at that.

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.

...There is still no mention of CONSENT, Ed!

You still don't understand that (according to the Bible) raping a woman is NOT "mistreating her"! It is NORMAL to rape captured women! This rule only forbids selling her into slavery (or killing her) afterwards. And note the phrase "if you are not pleased with her": this rule allows the man (and ONLY the man) to get rid of the woman without needing a divorce. There is no provision for the WOMAN to terminate the "relationship": she has no say in the matter.

Quote:

Of course at first they would not want to marry them but after time they will see...

A classic rapist's excuse. "OK, she might not like being raped at first, but given time she'll get to like it".

Quote:

..that that is the most logical option given that single women in ancient times were in a very precarious situation.

These were goat-herders, Ed. A single woman is perfectly capable of tending goats. There is only one reason why a woman needs a man in this society: to protect her from other men. THAT is the "precarious situation".

Quote:

Also, they would have seen how Israel was a much more morally advanced society than most at the time and they would have seen evidence that Israel's god WAS God.

They were muderers and rapists who worshipped a god who required blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). This was NOT a morally advanced society, even by the standards of the time. There were better ones around: the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Greeks.

Quote:

Again you are projecting your non-Christian moral values onto the situation. Nowhere in the Bible is rape described as wrong. Biblical rape is ONLY a crime against men (the husbands or fathers of the victims): it is NEVER a crime against women.

No, see 2 Samuel 13:12.

The rape of Tamar by her brother (or half-brother) Amnon. That is incest, Ed:

Quote:

2 Samuel 13:20 And Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom's house.

Furthermore, even though Amnon obviously raped her, she is MORE upset by the fact that he then abandoned her:

Quote:

2 Samuel 13:14-16 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone. And she said unto him, There is no cause: this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not hearken unto her.

...Why is this "worse than rape"? Because she's now a non-virgin single woman, unprotected, with no male guardian. Rapists are supposed to marry their victims.

But most importantly, the whole story confirms what I've been trying to point out to you. Amnon's treatment of Tamar causes Absalom to hate him: two years later, Absalom has Amnon murdered. But there was no LAW to protect Tamar. Without Absalom's personal hatred against him, Amnon would have got away with it.

Quote:

Married rape is also condemned see below and also in the new testament. The husband is to treat his wife like his own body. Also the golden rule applies.

No, it isn't. There is no Biblical condemnation of marital rape anywhere in the Bible. The golden rule breaks down in rape cases: the rapist is doing to the victim what he WANTS her to do to him (anatomy permitting). He wants sex with her: he'll be happy if she wants sex with him.

...I assume you've admitted defeat on the Amalekite massacre?

NOGO · 11-25-2002, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
14 "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.

Ed, you highlight the little that serves your purpose and ignore the rest that contradicts it.

"let her go wherever she wishes"

This does not mean divorce. "Let he go" means that she is free, ie no longer a slave. You do not LET GO a wife, Ed.

"wherever SHE wishes". This implies that she is being held against her wishes.

"you shall cretainly not sell her for money"

This precise interdiction confirms that the woman is a slave. Did a man ever SELL his wife into slavery simply because she did not please him anymore?

Ed, if you can find any indication that men could at any time sell their wives into slavery then I will accept your interpretation otherwise you are just talking rubbish.

This rule does not appear anywhere the Bible speaks on marriage.

"you shall not mistreat her BECAUSE you have humbled her"

"Mistreat" here refers to the act of selling her.
"humbled her" is a polite way of saying rape.
Therefore, because she has lost her virginity she is not to be sold. She has paid for her freedom with her virginity.

So this sentence says that you cannot sell her BECAUSE you have raped her.

NOGO · 11-25-2002, 07:57 AM

jtb: Again you are projecting your non-Christian moral values onto the situation. Nowhere in the Bible is rape described as wrong. Biblical rape is ONLY a crime against men (the husbands or fathers of the victims): it is NEVER a crime against women.

Ed: No, see 2 Samuel 13:12.

Once again, Ed, you demonstrate that you would use anything out of context to support your ridiculous claims.

2 Sam 13:12 is refering to incest. The guy is raping his sister. The shameful thing is incest.

Young's Literal Translation
2 Samuel 13
12 And she saith to him, `Nay, my brother, do not humble me, for it is not done so in Israel; do not this folly.

Darby Translation
2 Samuel 13
12 And she said to him, No, my brother, do not humble me; for no such thing is done in Israel: do not this infamy.

Notice the word "humble" is used in these translations to mean rape.

I would not be surprized if the Hebrew word for rape is to humble a woman. I will look it up.

NOGO · 11-25-2002, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Young's Literal Translation
Deut 22
13 `When a man taketh a wife, and hath gone in unto her, and hated her,
14 and laid against her actions of words, and brought out against her an evil name, and said, This woman I have taken, and I draw near unto her, and I have not found in her tokens of virginity:
15 `Then hath the father of the damsel -- and her mother -- taken and brought out the tokens of virginity of the damsel unto the elders of the city in the gate,
16 and the father of the damsel hath said unto the elders, My daughter I have given to this man for a wife, and he doth hate her;
17 and lo, he hath laid actions of words, saying, I have not found to thy daughter tokens of virginity -- and these [are] the tokens of the virginity of my daughter! and they have spread out the garment before the elders of the city.
18 `And the elders of that city have taken the man, and chastise him,
19 and fined him a hundred silverlings, and given to the father of the damsel, because he hath brought out an evil name on a virgin of Israel, and she is to him for a wife, he is not able to send her away all his days.

"send her away" most Bibles translate this as "divorce". He cannot divorce her

Compare this with "LET GO wherever she wishes" in Deut 21:14.

Quote:

20 `And if this thing hath been truth -- tokens of virginity have not been found for the damsel --
21 then they have brought out the damsel unto the opening of her father's house, and stoned her have the men of her city with stones, and she hath died, for she hath done folly in Israel, to go a-whoring [in] her father's house; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.

Another example of Yahweh's morality. I want to know if you consider this moral, Ed?

Quote:

22 `When a man is found lying with a woman, married to a husband, then they have died even both of them, the man who is lying with the woman, also the woman; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of Israel.

Yahweh's morality.

Quote:

23 `When there is a damsel, a virgin, betrothed to a man, and a man hath found her in a city, and lain with her;
24 then ye have brought them both out unto the gate of that city, and stoned them with stones, and they have died: -- the damsel, because that she hath not cried, [being] in a city; and the man, because that he hath humbled his neighbour's wife; and thou hast put away the evil thing out of thy midst.

Notice the word "humble" used again as rape.

Quote:

28 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,
29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

Notice that there is no divorce possible because he has humbled her.
The man pays her father 50 silverlings and is forced to marry the girl.

Quote:

Lev 19
20 Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.

Laws for slaves are different. Slaves are simply not important for Yahweh. What is interesting is also the place where this law is stated. It is in the middle of miscellaneous laws on cattle, trees, etc.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

NOGO · 11-25-2002, 09:11 AM

Strong's Concordance #06031 `anah {aw-naw'}

Is the word which is translated as humbled or violated.

It is the same Hebrew word in all these verses.
Deut 21:14
Deut 22:24
Deut 22:29
2 sam 13:12, 14 and 22

NASB Deuteronomy 21
14 "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.

"humbled" is 'anah in Hebrew.

NASB Deuteronomy 22
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

"violated" is 'anah in Hebrew.

NIV Deuteronomy 22
29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [1] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

"violated" is 'anah in Hebrew.

KJV Deuteronomy 22
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

"humbled" is 'anah in Hebrew.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

Ed · 11-27-2002, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


We are in a democracy, majority rules. If a large majority of people develop saomasochistic needs have you any doubt that will be the law of the land.

Probably today that is true, but originally the US was founded as a republic which means that the majority elects qualified representatives who make decisions based on a foundation of certain unchanging laws and principles. If we still had a judeo-christian republic such a thing would never occur.

Quote:

NG: Capturing virgins in battle was the law of the land back OT times. Could you imagine if during the war on Iraq American soldiers brought home Iraqi virgins what you you say?

You would tell them that they should marry them. Right!

No, that was a specific command for a specific nation, ancient Israel, at a specific time. However, if the women were brought here and married voluntarily, that would be fine.

Quote:

NG: Ed you failed to answer my previous post.
I must insist that you do.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

I did, see above.

NOGO · 11-28-2002, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Probably today that is true, but originally the US was founded as a republic which means that the majority elects qualified representatives who make decisions based on a foundation of certain unchanging laws and principles. If we still had a judeo-christian republic such a thing would never occur.

The idea of "unchaging laws" is a theist concept. It is anti-democratic. The US was never a judeo-christian republic.

Quote:

No, that was a specific command for a specific nation, ancient Israel, at a specific time. However, if the women were brought here and married voluntarily, that would be fine.

Deut 21:14 speaks in general not a specific event. I have shown above that the woman was enslaved and raped. If you have nothing else to add but to repeat this nonsense then I guess the discussion is over.

Quote:

NG: Ed you failed to answer my previous post.
I must insist that you do.

I did, see above.

Only in your dreams.
You have admitted that the primary reason for the Amalekite massacre was an event that took place 400 years before. Even with just this you have a huge problem in that people are made guilty by the mere fact they are descendents of people that committed a crime. Jesus says "fill up in the guilt of you fathers". Mt23:32

You have not begun to answer this point.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

11-25-2002, 09:11 AM	#218
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Strong's Concordance #06031 `anah {aw-naw'} Is the word which is translated as humbled or violated. It is the same Hebrew word in all these verses. Deut 21:14 Deut 22:24 Deut 22:29 2 sam 13:12, 14 and 22 NASB Deuteronomy 21 14 "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. "humbled" is 'anah in Hebrew. NASB Deuteronomy 22 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days. "violated" is 'anah in Hebrew. NIV Deuteronomy 22 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [1] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. "violated" is 'anah in Hebrew. KJV Deuteronomy 22 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. "humbled" is 'anah in Hebrew. [ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

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

11-25-2002, 07:57 AM	#216
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	jtb: Again you are projecting your non-Christian moral values onto the situation. Nowhere in the Bible is rape described as wrong. Biblical rape is ONLY a crime against men (the husbands or fathers of the victims): it is NEVER a crime against women. Ed: No, see 2 Samuel 13:12. Once again, Ed, you demonstrate that you would use anything out of context to support your ridiculous claims. 2 Sam 13:12 is refering to incest. The guy is raping his sister. The shameful thing is incest. Young's Literal Translation 2 Samuel 13 12 And she saith to him, `Nay, my brother, do not humble me, for it is not done so in Israel; do not this folly. Darby Translation 2 Samuel 13 12 And she said to him, No, my brother, do not humble me; for no such thing is done in Israel: do not this infamy. Notice the word "humble" is used in these translations to mean rape. I would not be surprized if the Hebrew word for rape is to humble a woman. I will look it up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.