Monday 29 March 2010

Ethiopian Brides


One may even have to make Biblical marriage illegal...like what's practiced in Ethiopia. See, good Bible believing men know that in Deuteronomy, the following passage can be found (Deut. 22:28-29).
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29Then 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.

So, what do you do if you want a woman to be your wife? Well, you simply take her, rape her, and then she has to marry you by Biblical law.

Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

i didn't read that to necessarily be "rape"; i just read it as any kind of "unmarried" sex.

Tigerboy said...

"find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her . . ."

Did I miss the part where the virgin gave consent?

Oh! I forgot. She's chattel. Property. She can't give consent!

The man does what he chooses, pays his silver shekels, and the wishes of the chattel are totally irrelevant.

Sounds like rape to me.

Tigerboy said...

A Bible-based marriage!

Anonymous said...

The OT is laden with instances of cruelty and harshness that is not easy to deal with. How could this be just?! The entire chapter of Deut 22 deals with marital laws. The chapter actually protects the woman if a man accuses her of being unchaste, or if the man rapes a woman. In these instances the woman is being protected, and furthermore the main message is the sanctity of marriage. These texts should not be taken literally, but they convey a deeper message, where God uses death as a punishment for one who violates the sacrament of marriage. It is not to say that we should enforce this same rule, but it is through this narrative that a deeper message is illustrated; the holy sanctity of marriage. The text that you spoke of is definitely hard to swallow. A man rapes a woman who is a virgin. Purely evil and immoral. But from this God secures a higher good, which is a marriage. The man is forbidden to leave the woman, but must sustain her for life. He took from her, now he must give back. From evil comes something holy, marriage. This chapter is effective in establishing the gravity of sins against marriage, and should not be taken literally. The text is not saying "it is just to rape woman and then marry her.". Thank you. And God bless

GCT said...

"The entire chapter of Deut 22 deals with marital laws."

No it does not. Verses 13-30 do.

"The chapter actually protects the woman if a man accuses her of being unchaste, or if the man rapes a woman."

You may want to re-read it. In the case of accusations, the father needs to provide evidence that she was a virgin. If he can, then the father gets money. If he can't, then the women gets stoned to death. In the case of rape, the man and woman both get stoned to death, unless the rape occurred in the country-side, which is the only protection the woman has. The other outcome of rape may be for the woman to be forced to be married to her attacker.

"...the main message is the sanctity of marriage."

No, it is not. The main message is the procuring and usage of goods (women).

"These texts should not be taken literally, but they convey a deeper message, where God uses death as a punishment for one who violates the sacrament of marriage."

These are laws given directly from god to the people, with the command that they follow them or else. And, you wish to contend that they weren't to be taken literally? I'm sorry, but I have to ask, are you a Poe?

"A man rapes a woman who is a virgin. Purely evil and immoral. But from this God secures a higher good, which is a marriage."

Regardless of the fact that the woman is forced into it and forced into a marriage with the very person that violently violated her?

"The man is forbidden to leave the woman, but must sustain her for life. He took from her, now he must give back."

Yes, he violated her and now she's forced to be his property forever. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Sorry if you aren't fully comprehending what I'm trying to convey. Those acts, that you just reiterated are not moral, they text is not intended to convey them as just, but as in all literature, a strong emphatic image is used to imprint a message, which is the sanctity of marriage. The punishment of death is used to instill upon the reader a respect for just how dignified marriage is. It is the message of the story, which is often hard to extract, but thats why its faith :) its difficult. The acts in Deut are horrible and immoral, and the book does not justify them, but uses them as a literary technique to impress a powerful message. These texts were written thousands of years ago and the manner in which they illustrate a truth is through entirely different means than what we would expect. It does not mean those sins are justified, but the message is entirely different. Thank you. God bless

Tyler said...

Anon: The acts in Deut are horrible and immoral, and the book does not justify them, but uses them as a literary technique to impress a powerful message.

"God is a horrible and immoral fictional character, and the book does not justify him, but uses him as a literary technique to impress a powerful message."

Anon: God bless

Fuck you too. :)

Goyo said...

I can't believe you just tried to explain those stupid scriptures like that anon. Another, " slave doesn't really mean slave" interpretation.
Bullshit!!

Anonymous said...

:) God bless

GCT said...

"Sorry if you aren't fully comprehending what I'm trying to convey."

No, I get what you are trying to say. What you are trying to say is really that you are uncomfortable with the things written in your holy book, so you are rejecting them and acting like they mean something other than what is plainly written. Yet, I'm still not seeing how specific laws written into the Bible are supposedly not literal prescriptions of what one should or should not do. When god says, "You should do X" how can you possibly claim that it's not what god wants you to do?

"Those acts, that you just reiterated are not moral, they text is not intended to convey them as just, but as in all literature, a strong emphatic image is used to imprint a message, which is the sanctity of marriage."

You're right, they aren't moral, but they are the laws as set out by god, and the Bible commands that they be followed. I'm glad that you see how immoral they are and that you are uncomfortable with them, but I'm a little disappointed that your defense is to basically admit that you are a cafeteria Xian.

Also, when you talk about the sanctity of marriage, do you mean the idea of having multiple wives, that women should be subservient to men, that women should be bought and sold by their fathers, etc? Or, are you speaking of the thoroughly modern concepts of marriage between loving couples (which I would presume you would only allow for one man and one woman)?

"The punishment of death is used to instill upon the reader a respect for just how dignified marriage is."

So, what's the punishment for raping a virgin who is not married? Oh yeah, you marry her.

"It is the message of the story, which is often hard to extract, but thats why its faith :) its difficult."

No, the message of the story is the laws that god set forth. You are imparting a message that is unsupported by the text because you are imparting your modern day personal biases on a text that you find uncomfortable.

Anonymous said...

The text quoted reads, "and they be found;" not 'and he be found'. To me this seems to imply both are guilty. Especially when the verses surrounding this passage make clear usage of "him" "her" "he" "she".

Tyler said...

Anon: To me this seems to imply both are guilty.

"You are guilty of being raped! You are hereby sentenced to marry your rapist!"

You disingenuous, inhumane asshole.

Dave said...

If some words in the Xian bible are not to be taken literally, then there is no way to know that any of it's words are to be taken literally. Those include the words that claim someone named Jesus rose from the dead.

Anonymous, though, claims to knows which words are to be taken literally in the Bible, and which are not, exhibiting in the process a degree of hubris that would send him to Hell if Jesus actually existed.

Anonymous said...

@Tyler:

If you understand this verse to indicate both parties ate guilty, then the implication is that no rape has occurred. Since you seem to misunderstand this let me be clear: I do not believe this verse deals with rape as both are indicated as being guilty by virtue of the wording "if they be found".

@Dave:

Not sure if that was for me or not, but I am not arguing for the Bible to mean anything other than what it says.

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote:

"@Dave:

Not sure if that was for me or not, but I am not arguing for the Bible to mean anything other than what it says."

You're either a troll (I note you hide your identity) or pathetically delusional, and maybe both.

Above, you claim the Bible means nothing other than what it says. Yet you've also written:

"These texts should not be taken literally."

Well, which is it? Do you argue, as you say you do, for what the Bible says?

Or do you argue, as you also say, that the Bible means what it doesn't say?

It doesn't matter, it's too late. By arguing both sides of the divide, you'e lost credibility.

You've also demonstrated for anyone who wanders in here, atheist or Xian, why Christianity isn't a credible religion.

Anonymous said...

first of all, the last post was a different Anon. Texts can be taken literally, metaphorically, and it takes intelligence to interpret the true meaning, not relativism. For instance, the phrase "I to pinch a loaf" (go poop) is not to be taken literally. You are not pinching a loaf literally, but with logical intelligence the true meaning of the language emerges. Just because you don't take it literally does not mean there are infinite ways to interpret it. You miscontrue my argument to mean that, if it is not taken literally, it can be understood in any different way. This is not true. There is a true meaning of the text. If youve ever read any decent literature you will realize reading a text often requires further examination. Thats why people go to school and write hundreds of pages on books and discuss them for thousands of hours... to realize the true meaning, which does not lie on the surface. God Bless. Happy Easter

Dave said...

"You miscontrue my argument to mean that, if it is not taken literally, it can be understood in any different way.

And you, Anon 2, haven't thought through what i wrote. I only claim that YOU understand what is clear in a different way, not any way. How nice that only you have this special knowledge of the "true meaning of the text."


I take it, then, that you don't believe there was a Jesus, and you certainly don't believe he was raised from the dead.

You have, apparently, studied the Bible to find the true meaning that lies below the surface.

If you don't believe the story of Jesus is to be taken literally, what do you think is the true meaning of the story?

Anonymous said...

sorry, if i didnt make it clear. Much of the bible is literal narrative. And much of it is not. There are 3 levels of meaning. The literal, the intended meaning (what the author intended to impress by storytelling), and the sensus plenior (the unintentional meaning, inspired by God, such as the story of Passover in the OT which was not intended by the author to be a precursor of Jesus be sacraficial ing the Lamb, but it was a divine inspiration). Im sure it is hard for a secularist to affirm the last one, and I dont expect you to, but Im just explaining how the Bible is examined. There is historical accuracy, and there is metaphor. And there are many instances where the Church allows either interpretation, such as the story of Noah's Arc. The church does not force a belief in its historical accuracy, but the deeper message is concrete. In the case of the narrative of Jesus and the vast majority of the New Testament, it is accurative in its narrative sense, and not only its deeper sense. Im sorry if I got anything jumbled but I hope I got the message across a little better. Thanks. God bless

Anonymous said...

and its not that "I" possess the true meaning of the text. I am saying the the true meaning of the text exists, and one must seek it beyond the literal edifice. Im not saying Im objectively right, because I definitely am not perfect, but Im explaining how the Bible is logically interpreted in order to seek the truth in biblical narrative.

GCT said...

IOW, if it really happened or I agree with it, it's to be taken literally. Else, it's not to be taken literally. So, if a passage condones rape and I don't like it, it's obviously a case of the Bible speaking in metaphor.

"And they be found" simply means that someone finds them in the act. It has nothing to do with intent of the woman. This law would cover both instances where the woman was complicit and where she wasn't. Hence, the defense that it's not really rape doesn't apply because the law covers the case where the woman is raped and treats it equally.

Hindupushup said...

The vitriol here blows me away. It's comical. What's even more comical is how you enlightened scholars, your words dripping with pride, apply the norms of 21st century western civ to a text that is 2500 years old. Thus accomplished, you draw agenda-fitting conclusions from a vague passage and use said conclusions as an argument to throw out the whole. All the while you all proclaim to be what? Champions of humanity and women's lib? Haha! Thanks for the laughs guys.

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Im sorry if I got anything jumbled but I hope I got the message across a little better. "

Definitely - I understand you're incapable of seeing the inconsistencies in your comments. Also, I understand you are incapable of discerning where I was leading you with my questions.

For now, you've clearly revealed to the rest of us that the Bible is only literal when the words in it it suit your purposes, and metaphorical when they don't.

You can accept the literalness of a Jewish zombie; you believe you can telepathically communicate with it, which are clearly extraordinary claims.

Yet you reject as metaphor all the parts of the Bible that are contradictory.

You twist and turn and jump through hoops, Anonymous, to keep your belief system intact.

Or maybe you're just a troll, because it's difficult to imagine someone with even a jot of rational thought making the comments you have with a straight face.

(By the way, I notice several spelling and grammatical errors, which makes me suspect Anonymous is fairly young, that English may be a second language, isn't a careful writer, or all of the above. Whichever it is, sloppy writing won't help Anonymous gain points.)

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"you draw agenda-fitting conclusions from a vague passage"

So, Hindupushup , there are vague passages in the Bible. I'm sure Anonymous, above, thinks differently; maybe you should check with him.

For Anonymous thinks "it takes intelligence to interpret the true meaning" of the Bible. Presumably Anonymous thinks you lack enough intelligence to understand what you're reading, since the best you can come up with from a passage about rape and marriage is that it's "vague."

Anonymous sees a lot more in such passages than you do. There are, he states, levels of meaning you just aren't smart enough to understand.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"you draw agenda-fitting conclusion...as an argument to throw out the whole"

This post about rape and marriage that GCT put up is in fact just one post of many, stretching back more than a couple of years. He's posted example after example after example of contradictions, cruelties and absurdities in the Bible over that period of time.

It is you, Hindupushup, who has made a hasty conclusion, based on this one post by GCT, while overlooking all the others that demonstrate just how delusional people are to believe in Jesus.

GCT said...

Hindupushup,
"The vitriol here blows me away."

I'm sorry if you are offended by one pointing out contradictions and immoralities in the Bible.

"...apply the norms of 21st century western civ to a text that is 2500 years old."

2 things:
1. Are you going to rely on relative morality to try and escape from the clearly immoral writings in the Bible? Was it moral 2500 years ago to force rape victims to marry their attackers? That would be a weird defense for a religion that claims that there is an absolute morality and that it comes from god as laid out in the Bible.
2. We don't have to look 2500 years back to see this Biblical behavior being played out in modern day Ethiopia.

"Thus accomplished, you draw agenda-fitting conclusions from a vague passage and use said conclusions as an argument to throw out the whole."

I only need one example to show that the Bible is not absolutely correct or absolutely moral. That's the problem with absolutes. Nevertheless, what Dave said is correct, I have many, many examples enumerated throughout this blog. Even so, I never claimed that Xianity is wrong due to this one passage. What I said was that this passage is indefensible and that the Bible is not a good moral guide.

"All the while you all proclaim to be what? Champions of humanity and women's lib? Haha! Thanks for the laughs guys."

I never claimed that, but I do stand up for women's lib and humanity. I don't see why that would be funny to you, unless you think those are concepts to be laughed at. I suppose that if you believe in the Bible, you may think that humans are less than pond scum and deserving of infinite torture and that women are property, which may make those concepts humorous, I suppose. But, others of us are more morally advanced.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: If you understand this verse to indicate both parties ate guilty, then the implication is that no rape has occurred.

If I understood that verse to indicate both parties are guilty, I'd be a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit like yourself.

No thank you. :)

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: The vitriol here blows me away.

This from someone who pens statements such as, "Hey fags, listen up. I think that deep down inside you know your behavior is twisted. I think that's why you people off yourselves in record numbers."

With all due respect, go fuck yourself, you hypocritical, homophobe-in-denial, waste of tainted oxygen.

Hindupushup said...

GCT,

"I'm sorry if you are offended by one pointing out contradictions and immoralities in the Bible."

I never said I was offended. On the contrary, I said that I was amused. In the few of your blogs that I've read, the discussion seems to quickly descend into grade school name-calling and ad hominem attacks. I suppose this shouldn't shock me as we're discussing religion here and that's something folks on both sides of the wall feel strongly about, but the majority of the bile seems to be coming from you and your fellows. If you are all so secure in your enlightenment, then what's the deal with all the hostility towards the relative innoucus Anons are posting on here?

“1. Are you going to rely on relative morality to try and escape from the clearly immoral writings in the Bible? Was it moral 2500 years ago to force rape victims to marry their attackers? That would be a weird defense for a religion that claims that there is an absolute morality and that it comes from god as laid out in the Bible.”

Clearly immoral writings? Hardly. I Am going to use relative morality to argue a point, but I’m not going to allow you to frame the language of the debate. Lets look at the NIV translation of the present passage: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” It’s clear from the text that the “law” was not meant to “force rape victims to marry their attackers,” but rather to provide a mechanism for the soceity of that time to provide for the victim. You seem educated so you probably realize that they didn’t have rape crisis centers back then, that women didn’t have the employment options they have now (the iron celiing?), and that a maidenhead was pretty much a prerequisite for marriage (as it is in many soceities today). The fact that the woman was raped all but excludes her from the marriage market. The law we’re talking about forces the rapist to provide for her “as long as he lives.” However, it doesn’t require that she marry him (“HE must marry the girl”). The girl’s family could refuse the rapist’s obligitory marriage offer and not be involiate of the law. CLEARLY the intent of the law is to ensure that the rape victim is cared for and CLEARLY read the law in a lame attempt to prove a dubious point.

“2. We don't have to look 2500 years back to see this Biblical behavior being played out in modern day Ethiopia.”

And we don’t have to look 2500 years back to see female children in China cast aside because soceity has an unhealthy emphasis on virginity and no mechanism to deal with violations of said virginity.

“What I said was that this passage is indefensible and that the Bible is not a good moral guide.”

Wrong. It’s very defensible as I’ve demonstrated above. Thanks for playing.

“I never claimed that, but I do stand up for women's lib and humanity. I don't see why that would be funny to you, unless you think those are concepts to be laughed at. I suppose that if you believe in the Bible, you may think that humans are less than pond scum and deserving of infinite torture and that women are property, which may make those concepts humorous, I suppose. But, others of us are more morally advanced.”

To even claim that one can be more “morally advanced” than another implies that there is some sort of absolute standard to be measured against. You keep sinking your own ship.

Hindupushup said...

"This from someone who pens statements such as, "Hey fags, listen up. I think that deep down inside you know your behavior is twisted. I think that's why you people off yourselves in record numbers."

Do I care that "fag" is an offensive term? Not at all. Do fags kill themselves more non-fags. A statistically significant yes.

"With all due respect, go fuck yourself, you hypocritical, homophobe-in-denial, waste of tainted oxygen."

All that because I said the word "fag" and then stated a fact about fag suicide? Thanks for further entrenching my assumption that libs are some of the most intolerant people when it comes to thought.

Hindupushup said...

@ Dave

"So, Hindupushup , there are vague passages in the Bible. I'm sure Anonymous, above, thinks differently; maybe you should check with him. For Anonymous thinks "it takes intelligence to interpret the true meaning" of the Bible. Presumably Anonymous thinks you lack enough intelligence to understand what you're reading, since the best you can come up with from a passage about rape and marriage is that it's "vague.""

Since I neither know nor care who Anon is, I neither feel the need nor care to defend his/her statements. Why are you telling me this?

"Anonymous sees a lot more in such passages than you do. There are, he states, levels of meaning you just aren't smart enough to understand."

Perhaps Anon is right. There are far far FAR more intelligent people than you and I who are Christains.

"This post about rape and marriage that GCT put up is in fact just one post of many, stretching back more than a couple of years. He's posted example after example after example of contradictions, cruelties and absurdities in the Bible over that period of time. It is you, Hindupushup, who has made a hasty conclusion, based on this one post by GCT, while overlooking all the others that demonstrate just how delusional people are to believe in Jesus."

I'm sorry, I can't understand you. GCT's nuts seem to be in your mouth.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Do I care that "fag" is an offensive term? Not at all.

Do the points make loud whooshing sounds when they fly over your head?

Hindupushup: Thanks for further entrenching my assumption that libs are some of the most intolerant people when it comes to thought.

What is it with these godbotherers thinking anyone who doesn't share their hypocrisy, inhumanity and self loathing is a lib...

Hmph... seems I answered my own question by asking it...

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler

I don't know you. At all. However, from this discussion thread alone you've produced the following gems:

"With all due respect, go fuck yourself, you hypocritical, homophobe-in-denial, waste of tainted oxygen."

"Fuck you too [responding to "God bless]."

"I'd be a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit like yourself."

"You disingenuous, inhumane asshole."

You're what they call a "keyboard badass." If you're what passes for humane than no thank you. I'll continue to be my monstrous self.

As for your "point" that apparently whooshed over my head... You don't have one. This discussion IS vitriolic. Must I cite your above statements again?
That is a fact and I merely pointed it out. Hypocrite or no, I'm not the self-appointed champion of humanity here.

Bang up job by the way.

Dave said...

"Since I neither know nor care who Anon is, I neither feel the need nor care to defend his/her statements. Why are you telling me this?"

It should be obvious, Hindupushup. That it isn't just validates the point I made.

"I'm sorry, I can't understand you. GCT's nuts seem to be in your mouth."

My, my, you ARE defensive, aren't you?

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"CLEARLY the intent of the law is to ensure that the rape victim is cared for."

Granting to you this is so, what is repellant to the rational amongst us is the lack of a specific condemnation of rape itself by the Xian God.

We are, after all, talking about an all-powerful god who allows rape in the first place (in fact he caused it to happen, as he has created everything in existence).

And then this all-powerful god forces the rape victim to marry her rapist:

"And she SHALL be his wife."

"Shall" is the operative word.

Of course, you tried to pathetically weasel out of that with your lame, "it doesn’t require that she marry him."

But that's just what the passage requires. "And she SHALL be his wife." Choice for the rapist and his victim is neither implicit nor explicit in this passage, only the command that something "shall" be done.

And of course, the marriage occurs only if "they be found." There is no punishment for the rapist if he isn't caught; as long as he's clever, he can rape as many women as he wishes, and your god turns a blind eye.

It's not, as one of the Anonymous commenters has intimated about you, i.e. you're dumb. The problem rational people have with the likes of you is that you're as morally as numb as your Sky Daddy.

Like your god, you don't care about rape itself. For you, rape is inconsequential.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: @Tyler I don't know you. At all.

Yet you had no problem jumping on the idea that I'm a "lib" (whatever you actually mean by that).

Hindupushup: If you're what passes for humane than no thank you.

If you think it's inhumane to call a spade a spade, that's your problem.

Hindupushup: I'll continue to be my monstrous self.

Of that I've little doubt.

Hindupushup: Hypocrite or no, I'm not the self-appointed champion of humanity here.

And again, Mr. Hypocrite does a bang up job of jumping on an idea about someone he acknowledges he doesn't know. At all.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"GCT's nuts seem to be in your mouth."

Hindupushup seems hung up, so to speak, on sex. Methinks he doth protest too much; there's evidence that he's at least a little closeted, for if he can't understand something, he pictures someone's testicles in another man's mouth.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"However, it doesn’t require that she marry him (“HE must marry the girl”)."

Even using the NIV bible, as Hindupuship did, rather than the King James version, there can be no mistake about what the word "must" means.

He tried to sneak out of the meaning of "must" another way:

"The girl’s family could refuse the rapist’s obligitory marriage offer"

The bible doesn't say anything about an offer, even though deluded Hindupushup wants us to think it does.

Quoting Hindupushup again, the NIV reads:

"He must marry the girl"

For, as Hindupushup admits,

"a maidenhead was pretty much a prerequisite for marriage (as it is in many soceities today). The fact that the woman was raped all but excludes her from the marriage market."

In which case, a girl (or a woman) is doubly screwed by her rapist - she can either marry her rapist, or never be married. Quite the choice.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

Let's start with the trivial:

"Hindupushup seems hung up, so to speak, on sex. Methinks he doth protest too much; there's evidence that he's at least a little closeted, for if he can't understand something, he pictures someone's testicles in another man's mouth."

I thought my comment regarding your fawning of GCT or whatever his/her name is was funny. Since you quoted it in two different posts, I gather that it struck a nerve. Defensive? No, not really. It's just that I'm not going to sift through all of the drivel on this blog. GCT raised an excerpt from the text in order to discredit the whole and I deconstructed his argument. Next.

Regarding Anonymous posts:

"It should be obvious, Hindupushup. That it isn't just validates the point I made."

What should be obvious? I made a statement about the argument in general and you counter with specific arguments raised by random people? I'm supposed to defend them? No. I'm not going to read Anonymous’s post about God knows what and respond to you. If you want to argue with me, fine. Using someone else's statements in an argument against one of my own is fallacy.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

Now, on to substance:

If you took the time to read my post, you would've seen that I quoted the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible as opposed to the King James. The NIV project was started in 1965 and is the product of modern scholarship from across the denominational spectrum. GCT quoted the King James version, a translation done in the early 17th century by the Church of England. I think you'll concede that 365 years of intervening scholarship and translation of the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts gives the NIV a little more oomph (for lack of a better word) when discussing these matters. The NIV translation of the verses is thus:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

If you read the above translation, your long-winded argument falls on its face. Why? Because the words "And she SHALL be his wife" aren't even in there! Try as you might, the idea that God or even Hebrew society circa 2500 BC would FORCE a woman to marry her rapist falls flat on its face. You've taken a good law, one designed to preserve the girl in the horrible instance that her social and marriageable value is destroyed (and thus her very survival put in jeopardy) and have perverted it to suit your own world view.

Here's some food for thought: while you're trying to demonize the Old Testament, have you ever thought for one second that the Old Testament and the rules therein has served the Jewish people quite well? The Jewish culture is probably the longest-lived culture in all of human history. The Ancient Egyptians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Romans, the feudal kingdoms of Europe, the Nazis and the Soviets... all these groups (and many more besides) have at one time or another persecuted the Jews, this tiny race of plucky people. Where are all these civilizations now? Gone. The Jewish people march on.

"We are, after all, talking about an all-powerful god who allows rape in the first place (in fact he caused it to happen, as he has created everything in existence)."

I'm pretty tired from working all day and training to address the ignorance of this statement. Needless to say you're trying to slip in an entirely different discussion.

"It's not, as one of the Anonymous commenters has intimated about you, i.e. you're dumb. The problem rational people have with the likes of you is that you're as morally as numb as your Sky Daddy.

Like your god, you don't care about rape itself. For you, rape is inconsequential."

Sigh... yes, you're right. I don't care about rape. You got me there. Classic tactic; nice work. Just like if I don't want the federal government to run health care then that means I don't care about the poor or if I'm against illegal immigration then I'm racist.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

You're right! HE MUST marry the girl. SHE doesn't have to do anything.

Again, lets think of what the law aims to accomplish here - preserve the girl, not reward the rapist. If the family has the means to support the woman, it stands to reason that they would not consent to the marriage. If not, then rather than force the now-unmarriageable woman to starve, the rapist is required to support her for the rest of her life. Considering the subsistance economy of 2500 BC, it's a reasonable solution to a difficult problem.

It's the rapist who'd be doubly screwed.

And my comment about virginity has nothing to do with the Bible or Old Testament laws, but rather the cultural climate of the times when the laws were written. I'm pretty sure a jewish girl who's been around the block in Tel Aviv would still be able to get married circa 2010.

Nice try though. Next.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"Defensive? No, not really."

Once again, you prove (inadvertently on your part) my point. ;-)

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler -

I don't know you. I don't have to know you to know that you see yourself the arbeiter of what is humane and what isn't. After all, you've told three people on here that their inhumane. Why? Because their Christians?

Dude, you're like an annoying insect buzzing in everyone's ear.

If you're not going to discuss the issue at hand then shut up.

To pull a play from your own book: You're an asshole jerkface!!!

Can we get back to the discussion now?

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"What should be obvious? "

OK, I'll give it a shot, although you figured out the answer later in your comment. One of the Anonymous posters (can't keep 'em straight without a program) claimed that only intelligent people can figure out the hidden meaning of some of the words in the bible.

And then you came along and claimed that passages about rape and marriage are "vague," indicating, in Anonymous' view, that you lack the smarts to figure out what is really going on with the bible.

Which further means that while both you and Mr. Whomever Anonymous both claim to be Christians, neither of you can see eye-to-eye on the meaning of a passage from your bible that is obvious to the rest of us.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave
"Once again, you prove (inadvertently on your part) my point. ;-)"

I'm confused... you went on and on about your fearless leader and his blog and, rather than respond, I stated that you were gargling his balls.

You then said I was being defensive.

So if I were defensive about anything it'd be about... your sentences about GCT?

Ummmm... ok?

Next.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"If the family has the means to support the woman, it stands to reason that they would not consent to the marriage."

No, it doesn't.

"If you took the time to read my post, you would've seen that I quoted the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible as opposed to the King James. "

If you'd taken time to read MY post, you'd have seen I also commented on the NIV version of your bible. And either version demonstrates you're twisting the meaning of the words in your bible.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave
"OK, I'll give it a shot, although you figured out the answer later in your comment. One of the Anonymous posters (can't keep 'em straight without a program) claimed that only intelligent people can figure out the hidden meaning of some of the words in the bible.

And then you came along and claimed that passages about rape and marriage are "vague," indicating, in Anonymous' view, that you lack the smarts to figure out what is really going on with the bible.

Which further means that while both you and Mr. Whomever Anonymous both claim to be Christians, neither of you can see eye-to-eye on the meaning of a passage from your bible that is obvious to the rest of us."

If I'm not mistaken, our Anonymous said you have to be intelligent to interpret the Bible (I disagree with this statement). I said that the passage in the Bible we're talking about is vauge. Vaugness implies being open to interpretation. Anonymous says the you have to be intelligent to interpret the Bible, I say the Bible lends itself to interpretation...

How is what we're saying different again?

And how, exactly, are Anonymous, some guy/gal I don't know, and myself supposed have some sort of supernatural consensus on a book that human race has disagreed about for centuries?

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

He must marry the woman...
Show me where it says that the woman must marry him? Nowhere? Excatly.

Me: "If the family has the means to support the woman, it stands to reason that they would not consent to the marriage."

You: No, it doesn't.

So if a man raped your daughter and was forced to marry her, you'd consent to the marriage? I'm calling child services.



You: "If you took the time to read my post, you would've seen that I quoted the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible as opposed to the King James."

If you'd taken time to read MY post, you'd have seen I also commented on the NIV version of your bible."

Me: Nice try, but you wrote two different posts. I was responding to your first post where you did NOT address the NIV. I can't read your mind.

You: "And either version demonstrates you're twisting the meaning of the words in your bible."

Me: I'm twisting the words of the Bible??!! Haha! Let's check the score here:

People who are trying to argue that the present excerpt from the Bible condones rape: Dave, Tyler, GCT, Tigerboy, etc.

People who are trying to argue that the present excerpt from the Bible attempts to punish the rapist while preserving the victim: me.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"I think you'll concede that 365 years of intervening scholarship and translation of the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts gives the NIV a little more oomph (for lack of a better word) when discussing these matters."

Come up with a better word. "Oomph" lacks precision. For now, I'm presuming you assert the NIV has more validity than the KJ version of the Bible.

Which means you think that, for the past 365 intervening years, the Bible got some things wrong. In which case, I'd have been an unknowing fool - had I lived that long - to have put my faith in the Xians' bible.

Unlike you, I think the intervening 365 years has simply played the telephone game with the Bible. And of course, people with particular agendas have changed the words to suit their purposes.

For example, in the KJ version, Jonathan is identified as homosexual:

"thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness"

While in the NIV, it's:

"you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you"

What happened to that naked momma? She's not naked anymore, because it became politically incorrect to admit Bible figures have gay lifestyles.

So, by your own admission, the Bible is hardly made up of the words of a god. It's made up of absurd stories, and the words, and meaning, can change over the years.

Only those, who like you, delude themselves, must keep rationalizing away the absurdities.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"Show me where it says that the woman must marry him?"

OK, but first, here's the definition of "shall," which is used in the KJ bible, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. We'll look at "must" next. Either way, "must" and "shall" mean something you claim they don't mean, and that's why no one here takes you seriously.

"Shall" -

"1 archaic a : will have to : must b : will be able to : can

2 a —used to express a command or exhortation

3 a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future

4 —used to express determination

You see, Hindupushup, there's NO confusion about what "shall" means. The damsel (which turns into a girl in the NIV bible) SHALL marry her rapist.

Let's look at the NIV version, though, with the change of "shall" to "must."

"Must" -

"1 a : be commanded or requested to

2 : be compelled by physical necessity to: be required by immediate or future need or purpose to

3 a : be obliged to : be compelled by social considerations to

b : be required by law, custom, or moral conscience to

c : be determined to

4 : be logically inferred or supposed to

5 : be compelled by fate or by natural law to

6 : was or were presumably certain to : was or were bound to

Only you think "must" and "shall" don't mean what the above definitions say they mean.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

You could've saved your breath. Yes, men wrote the Bible. Men translated the Bible. Stay on point and stop drifting all over the place.

Guys and gals,
The original blog asked for someone to come forward and "defend" Deuteronomy 22:28-29. I've done so. It does not condone rape; it punishes the rapist while providing a means of redress for the victim so that she can still eat.

Would someone write that law today? Of course not. Was it applicable back when Rome was a republic and the Greeks were stemming the rose? Yes.

This has grown tiresome. Later dudes.

Dave said...

Hinducup wrote:

"So if a man raped your daughter and was forced to marry her, you'd consent to the marriage? I'm calling child services."

Are you that dense, or are you a troll?

It's just the opposite. If MY daughter were raped, I wouldn't want her marrying her rapist even if I COULDN'T afford to take care of her myself.

YOU, on the other hand, thinks it's fine to force a woman both raped and poor to live on the handout of the rapist she's forced to marry.

Of course your god, who can do anything, could have decreed that a rapist would have the shaft of his penis removed, and that for the rest of his days he would have to support the girl/damsel/woman he raped, whether or not she married him.

But not your god. The girl "must" marry her rapist.

Your god isn't very powerful, what with not being able to stop rape, and who doesn't even think about a rapist needs to be punished unless he and his victim are caught in the act.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"I was responding to your first post where you did NOT address the NIV. I can't read your mind."

You didn't have to read my mind, only my second post, which appeared before yours. Perhaps you were writing your comment while I was addressing the NIV in my subsequent post.

Hindupushup said...

Dave,

Let's put this whole "must" debacle to bed...

Suppose I crashed into your beautiful new and economical Toyota Prius that was parked and unoccupied in your driveway. Suppose you then presented me with a bill of repair for 2000 dollars. Suppose then I refused to pay. You take me to court and the Judge states that I MUST give you a check for 2000 dollars.

I'm required to give you a check for 2000 dollars, but are you required to cash that check? You're within your rights to rip up that check right in front of my face. I'm required to give you the money but you're not required to take it.

The rapist must marry the girl. The girl does not have to marry him. In fact, her refuseal would place the rapist in continued violation of the law (as set forward by King Josiah).

There. Now goodbye for real.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"People who are trying to argue that the present excerpt from the Bible condones rape: Dave, Tyler, GCT, Tigerboy, etc."

This is a bald-faced lie. Now it's your turn: show me where I said the Bible condones rape.

The problem with the Xian god is that he doesn't specifically CONDEMN rape. To say I wrote your god condones rape is, again, a lie.

Let's not forget that punishment for the rapist comes only if he's caught. God, who can work all sorts of crazy miracles, won't lift a finger to stop a serial rapist. He allows it. He even created it, since he created both good and evil, along with everything else in the known universe.

Of course, Hindupushup, your god DOES condone rape. After a battle, your god has Moses order his Jewish soldiers to take the virgins for their own.

"But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Let's not forget that your god orders David's wives to be raped by his own son, Absalom, while everyone watches.

From the NIV:

"I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight."

Dave said...

"People who are trying to argue that the present excerpt from the Bible attempts to punish the rapist while preserving the victim: me."

Once again, a lie, if only by omission. I have specifically pointed out that the rapist can be punished - but only if he's caught.

Caught in the city with a girl who doesn't yell, "Stop!" loud enough, and the rapist - and the woman! - are punished.

Caught in the countryside raping a girl? Punished by having to marry and support a woman.

But punishment for rape in general, whether caught in the act or not? Silence. And when it comes to actually stopping rape, your god "all-knowing, all-seeing" god is impotent.

That you can't see the problem with this denotes your mental state, the self-delusional aspects of your personality, Hindupushup, fostered by the brainwashing you've received.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

HIndupushup wrote:

"There. Now goodbye for real."

As usual with your sort, you can't take the heat. Your kind always slithers away.

I'll tidy up for you in your absence:

"The rapist must marry the girl."

Yes, this is precisely the problem, even though you can't see it. Your nutty god could have said, "A man who rapes a woman, whether she marries him or not, must pay her money, must support her, whether she marries or not."

But no, your god commands that the rapist "must" marry the woman he rapes. You know that's wrong, I know it's wrong, we all know it's wrong. Yet you defend the practice.

"The girl does not have to marry him."

Fine. The raped girl does not have to marry her rapist. However, this is irrelevant to the fact that it is WRONG to command the rapist to marry the woman. It's wrong because it's grotesque to argue that, once raped, a victim is "protected" by her rapist by marrying him.

As for your Toyota analogy (actually, I drive an old Ford Ranger), it fails. Let's see why (and I know, even if you don't respond, you're still here, Hindupushup, to see what my last response will be).

You bash my car - OK, you're like the rapist.

My car is the like the rape victim.

And I'm like the parents of the rape victim, who want justice.

But for the analogy to hold, you can't just offer me money that I may or may not accept. The court has to order you to TAKE OWNERSHIP OF MY CAR (and take care to change it's oil, wash it, etc) to complete the analogy.


Just as I wouldn't want a rapist to marry my daughter, so I wouldn't want someone who damaged my car to become the new owner of my car.

So you STILL don't get it. You have shown yourself incapable of carrying through to it's logical conclusion what it means to order a rapist to marry his victim.

Not only do you not get how immoral your position is in regards to rape, now that you've claimed you're slithering away, you've also shown yourself to be a coward, too.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: @Tyler - I don't know you.

Yes, we've established this.

Hindupushup: I don't have to know you to know that you see yourself the arbeiter of what is humane and what isn't.

Well, yeah, ya kinda do.

Hindupushup: After all, you've told three people on here that their[sic] inhumane. Why? Because their[sic] Christians?

Uh, no. Because they're inhumane. Wouldn't matter if they were christian or not. Anyone who stands behind an ideology that demands that a rape victim marry her rapist is inhumane.

Hindupushup: Can we get back to the discussion now?

We've been discussing the topic you yourself brought up, you sniveling, hypocritical little cunt.

Hindupushup: You're within your rights to rip up that check right in front of my face.

What, and put myself through even more trouble on your account? I'm not as stupid as you look.

Hindupushup: The girl does not have to marry him.

The girl doesn't have a choice in the matter, any more than a loaf of bread as a choice regarding who buys and sells it. She's a piece of property to be used however her owner sees fit, right down to that "just and righteous" Lot offering his virgin daughters up to a mob for rape to save his house guests the trouble of getting buggered.

It's a charming little story. You should read it sometime.

Dave said...

Tyler wrote:

"Lot offering his virgin daughters up to a mob for rape"

That's another obvious example of the Xian god condoning rape that I should have added to my list.

GCT said...

Hindupushup,
"...but the majority of the bile seems to be coming from you..."

This charge is made quite often by those whose tail feathers get ruffled by anyone questioning their beliefs. Yet, I don't think you'll be able to back up that charge.

"If you are all so secure in your enlightenment, then what's the deal with all the hostility towards the relative innoucus Anons are posting on here?"

Once again, I'm sorry if you are offended that I use logic and reason to show how contradictory your faith is, but that isn't the same is vitriol or hostility.

"I Am going to use relative morality to argue a point..."

Then you've already lost. You can't defend an absolute morality by appealing to relative morality.

"CLEARLY the intent of the law is to ensure that the rape victim is cared for and CLEARLY read the law in a lame attempt to prove a dubious point."

By having the rape victim marry the perpetrator, which is clearly immoral.

"And we don’t have to look 2500 years back to see female children in China cast aside because soceity has an unhealthy emphasis on virginity and no mechanism to deal with violations of said virginity."

This is a non sequitor.

"To even claim that one can be more “morally advanced” than another implies that there is some sort of absolute standard to be measured against."

Not at all. There need not be an absolute standard - we only need an agreed upon standard. I think we both agree that having rape victims further traumatized by marrying their attackers is immoral, yet you seem to want to defend it. Based on our shared moral values, it would seem that you are less moral than I.

"The Jewish culture is probably the longest-lived culture in all of human history."

Except for the Egyptians, Chinese, Indians, etc. Still, longevity doesn't equal morality or correctness.

"Would someone write that law today? Of course not. Was it applicable back when Rome was a republic and the Greeks were stemming the rose? Yes."

Again, your use of relative morality astounds me. I find it obviously wrong that a theology that touts absolute morality would depend on relative morality to buttress it.

Tyler said...

Missed this little tidbit of (more) irony...

Hindupushup: And we don’t have to look 2500 years back to see female children in China cast aside because soceity[sic] has an unhealthy emphasis on virginity...

"And we don't have to look 2500 years back to see homosexuals in the US cast aside because society has an unhealthy emphasis on homosexuality..."

Sheesh, when you step in it, you really step in it, don'tcha guy.

Anonymous said...

The offering of Lot's daughters is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true. God did not order or give approval of Lot's offer.

I can't help it if you cannot differentiate between one anonymous poster and another. If you do not wish to allow for anonymity, then why not simply disable this feature?

The only one to respond to my comment of the passage in question not dealing with rape was GCT. Thank you for that. However your response doesn't quite satisfy me, ""And they be found" simply means that someone finds them in the act. It has nothing to do with intent of the woman."

The verses before this pronounced death upon a rapist (v24,25) and there has already been a distinction drawn between a woman upon whom guilt can be imputed and a woman upon whom guilt should not be imputed. The usage of "they" indicated both are guilty, not only as a cultural subjegation of the woman but in actuality guilty of the deed together.

Note the words used in each of the instances also: find her(v23), force her (v25), lay hold of her (v28). These phrases are indicative of different words used in the original language which conveyed different meanings. In v25 the case is clearly understood to be rape... if v28 is also rape then why not use the same language (IE: force instead of lay hold of)?

And people do not take all atheists or dissidents as offensive. Only those who take the argument to ad hominem attacks the first time they have nothing of value to add to the conversation. There is certainly an ironic martyr complex among atheists as being criticized for honesty which is a veil for hatred and personal bias. You wouldn't allow those on the other side of the fence to engage you this way, no one would as this is a thin veil everyone sees through, and it is disturbing that the plank is not clearly seen.

Hindupushup said...

GCT,

Talking with your friends had grown tiresome.

"By having rape victims marry the perpetrator, which is clearly immoral."

Were that the actual law, then yes, I concede that forcing the victim to marry her rapist is wrong. However, since the law does not state that, your point is moot.

Everything I've stated above regarding the culture in which this law was written, you’ve chosen to ignore, stating that I’m using moral relativism to prove a point. The Jews, both then and now, found rape to be abhorrent. I'm not going to go through this again. For proof, read Deuteronomy 22:25. If you cannot concede that this law (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) was drafted to punish the rapist while at the same time providing some sort of redress for his victim, there's no point of continuing this discussion.

Need I explain again? If a woman cannot marry, she starves. There were no supermarkets back then, no social security. “What about Deuteronomy 22:25? Won’t she starve there?” No. In times as recent as the early 20th century, a betrothal carried as almost as much a legal weight as a marriage.

Every single point you've raised I've countered, yet many of the points I've raised you've been silent on.

Since I have some time, I'm going to take this in another direction. I began as a guest on here and I have engaged in your debate, framed on your own terms. Even in your realm, my contention stands.

That said, the verbal jousting here has given me the impetus to dig into the matter a little deeper.

What I've found is this: Atheists frequently see Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as a chink through which to stab the entire Bible. Your post is nothing new. It is a caltrop your ilk frequently throws out there, hoping to make others stumble.

Here’s an article that suggests the verse doesn’t talk about rape at all:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
(In short, verse 25 uses a word “chazaq” to describe rape. This word is not used only 3 verses later. Why? Perhaps it’s because verses 28-29 do not discuss rape at all but rather a consensual act)

If we hold that the information therein is accurate, then we’re both wrong and our entire discussion has been pointless. However, if I’m wrong, the moral authority of the Bible remains intact.

Either way, you’re just… wrong.

Hindupushup said...

Anon and GCT,

No one on here has offended me. Not even our young friend Tyler here.

I merely pointed out that the language being used was heated. I also said I found it comical. However, I never said that I was, even for one second, offended by what anyone on here has said.

Dave said...

One of the Anonymous ones wrote:

"There is certainly an ironic martyr complex among atheists as being criticized for honesty which is a veil for hatred and personal bias."

You were doing so well before this sentence.

First, It's not a sentence that is written well. It's a run-on sentence, which makes it difficult to understand; the word "ironic" is gratuitous, if not mildly insulting.

Beyond that, the sentence is a non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is about the Xian god countenancing the marriage of a rapist to his underage ("girl") victim.

It's also an ad hominem attack on atheists. As such, – even if the observation is true – it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler,

"And we don't have to look 2500 years back to see homosexuals in the US cast aside because society has an unhealthy emphasis on homosexuality..."

Sheesh, when you step in it, you really step in it, don'tcha guy."

Comparing the so-called plight of homos in the US to the treatment of unwanted female babies in China is like comparing spray-paint vandalism to serial murder.

Almost forgot - Jerkface coward asshole!

GCT said...

Anon,
"The offering of Lot's daughters is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true. God did not order or give approval of Lot's offer."

That is patently false. Lot is seen as a righteous man before, during, and after he offers his daughters up.

"I can't help it if you cannot differentiate between one anonymous poster and another. If you do not wish to allow for anonymity, then why not simply disable this feature?"

Because it doesn't really bother me. I try not to assume that one anon is the same as another.

"The verses before this pronounced death upon a rapist (v24,25) and there has already been a distinction drawn between a woman upon whom guilt can be imputed and a woman upon whom guilt should not be imputed."

The verses before tend to talk about him being found or they being found pretty interchangeably, and finding them both guilty except in the one case where the woman is raped in the countryside. So, there's no reason not to think that the woman would also be thought of as guilty for being raped in the last case.

"Note the words used in each of the instances also: find her(v23), force her (v25), lay hold of her (v28). These phrases are indicative of different words used in the original language which conveyed different meanings. In v25 the case is clearly understood to be rape... if v28 is also rape then why not use the same language (IE: force instead of lay hold of)?"

"Rape" is used in the NIV. Either way, this is a bit irrelevant. What kind of god decides that it's even a good idea to have rape victims marry their attackers?

"And people do not take all atheists or dissidents as offensive. Only those who take the argument to ad hominem attacks the first time they have nothing of value to add to the conversation."

When I'm falsely accused of this, I can only assume it is because the accuser has their dander up at having their beliefs questioned.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave,

"Not only do you not get how immoral your position is in regards to rape, now that you've claimed you're slithering away, you've also shown yourself to be a coward, too."

Perhaps for you facing down barbs on some guy's blog amounts to courage.

I'm not impressed.

GCT said...

Hindupushup,
"Were that the actual law, then yes, I concede that forcing the victim to marry her rapist is wrong. However, since the law does not state that, your point is moot."

Even if I grant that the woman need not accept the offer of marriage, it is still immoral.

"Everything I've stated above regarding the culture in which this law was written, you’ve chosen to ignore, stating that I’m using moral relativism to prove a point."

I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out the very real problem with your moral system. You can't defend absolute morality by appealing to relative morality. If it is wrong to have rape victims marry their attackers now, then it was just as wrong then by your own system of absolute morality.

"The Jews, both then and now, found rape to be abhorrent."

So abhorrent that they killed the victims.

"I'm not going to go through this again. For proof, read Deuteronomy 22:25. If you cannot concede that this law (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) was drafted to punish the rapist while at the same time providing some sort of redress for his victim, there's no point of continuing this discussion."

What, the one caveat that they put in that a woman who may have screamed loudly enough but not been heard shouldn't be killed somehow means that they are pro-woman and pro-rape victim? Do you know how many people have not been convicted of rape because the jurors thought the woman didn't struggle hard enough?

"Every single point you've raised I've countered, yet many of the points I've raised you've been silent on."

No, you haven't, and yes, I have countered your points.

"Since I have some time, I'm going to take this in another direction. I began as a guest on here and I have engaged in your debate, framed on your own terms. Even in your realm, my contention stands."

No, it doesn't as I've pointed out. You are making a categorical error that you seem to want to sweep under the rug - I won't let you.

"What I've found is this: Atheists frequently see Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as a chink through which to stab the entire Bible."

One of many.

"Here’s an article that suggests the verse doesn’t talk about rape at all"

I'll take a look at it.

"If we hold that the information therein is accurate, then we’re both wrong and our entire discussion has been pointless. However, if I’m wrong, the moral authority of the Bible remains intact.

Either way, you’re just… wrong."

If you are wrong then how does the moral authority of the Bible stay intact...for that matter how does it stay intact even if you are right?

Hindupushup said...

GCT -
""Rape" is used in the NIV. Either way, this is a bit irrelevant."

Weak attempt at sidestepping the issue. I want to hear your learned explaination as to why one Hebrew word is used in v25 and another in v28-29? If both discuss rape, why not use the same word? Occum's Razor provides us the answer to this delimma; two different words are used because the verses discuss two different things.

Perhaps your friend Dave can give you some lessons in courage.

Hindupushup said...

@GCT

"If you are wrong then how does the moral authority of the Bible stay intact...for that matter how does it stay intact even if you are right?"

'If I'm wrong' - referring to my contention that v28-29 is meant to ensure that the raped woman is cared for. The article I posted argues that v28-29 does not refer to rape at all but rather an act between to consenting parties.

If we agree that the article has some validity (it does), then both of our contentions are wrong or at least very questionable. In other words, if Deut. 22:28-29 does not deal with rape, then your contention that Deut. 22:28-29 forces a raped girl to marry her rapist is false and, as such, cannot be used to question the moral authority of the Bible.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Were that the actual law, then yes, I concede that forcing the victim to marry her rapist is wrong. However, since the law does not state that, your point is moot.

You claimed she doesn't have to marry her rapist. Please cite the (legal) passage which allows her this provision.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Comparing the so-called plight of homos in the US to the treatment of unwanted female babies in China is like comparing spray-paint vandalism to serial murder.

How's that, exactly?

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler

Here:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

But catch up little buddy and read this article:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

You cumdumpster inhumane dog turd!

Tyler said...

Anon: The offering of Lot's daughters is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true.

"The digging of a hole is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true."

Jesus christ skull fucking a blow up doll, do you actually think what you said here remotely makes any sense?

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler

"How's that, exactly?"

Where to begin?

Homos - want to be able to marry (and in some states can marry)

Unwanted Chinese babies - Best case they are abandoned at already overcrowded orphanages where they receive the bare minimum in care. With no stimulants, the children often grow up with severe learning and social disabilities. Worst case? Use your imagination. It probably happens.

Of course you probably know all this, seeing how you're morally superior to me and all.

You bologna-titted scumbag turdlicker.

Hindupushup said...

Tyler,

"The offering of Lot's daughters is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true."

It's clear that Anon, in the last word of this sentence, meant "right" as in the morally correct sense of the word instead of "true." It was a typo. Are we arguing metaphysics or are we arguing syntax here?

Your comments add nothing to the debate. They're just fun to respond to.

You poopy-dicked pimple pecker!

Tyler said...

You claimed she doesn't have to marry her rapist. Please cite the (legal) passage which allows her this provision.

Hindupushup: @Tyler

Here:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."


Would you mind explaining exactly how that passage provides the rape victim the legal option of refusing to marry her rapist?

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote

"God did not order or give approval of Lot's offer."

I'll explain the moral problem with the story of Lot. I'll explain it because you, Anonymous, can't see it, because you've been blinded by your faith.

The problem is that a city of men, women and children are wiped off the face of the earth by an all-powerful god who then does nothing about Lot's sins.

For example, when the men, young and old, of Sodom want to have sex with Lot's visiting angels, Lot offers up his daughters. (He also lies about them being virgins, since both are married.)

I know this is the wrong thing to do, Anonymous, and you know it's wrong, yet you overlook it.

More importantly, it's your imaginary god overlooks Lot's offering. He overlooks Lot's lies, too. He overlooks these sins, and then he spares Lot when he destroys Sodom, including it's children, raining down "fire and brimstone."

You know it's wrong to kill the innocent; yet your god kills even the infants in Sodom. And you, Anonymous, like your god, overlook this obvious horror.

And of course Lot's wife is famously turned into a pillar of salt for the "sin" of looking back at God's handiwork as he blots out Sodom and Gomorrah. Woe be she of little faith.

Later, Lot's daughters get their father drunk. Then they have sex with him.

That's the end of what we learn about Lot, his wife and his daughters. Except for Lot's wife, who dies for being a rubbernecker, God does nothing about the sins of this family; he doesn't even comment on them.

Worse, while he's all-powerful, while he created everything (including good and evil), he allows what happens in Sodom. He could rain down fire and brimstone to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah after sinning takes place, but he was powerless to stop the sinning before it occurred.

Your god gives his angles who visit lot the ability to blind those who would rape them, but then he can't stop Lot from offering up his daughters to the mob. He can't stop Lot's wife from turning 'round. He can't stop lot's daughters from fucking their own father while he sleeps in a drunken stupor.

This is, obviously, a god who is at times both immoral and inconsistent. He is not all-powerful. He's a monster. But you, Anonymous, overlook all this.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Where to begin?

Homos - want to be able to marry (and in some states can marry)


Unwanted chinese babies want to be able to marry...

Unwanted Chinese babies - Best case they are abandoned at already overcrowded orphanages where they receive the bare minimum in care. With no stimulants, the children often grow up with severe learning and social disabilities. Worst case? Use your imagination. It probably happens.

Homosexuals - best case they are largely shunned by society. With such a lack of social acceptance, they often grow up with severe mental issues and social disabilities - like not being able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals. Worst case? Well, you homophobic piece of shit, you don't even have to use your imagination. You can just refer to the facts you listed on your own blog.

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler -
"Homosexuals - best case they are largely shunned by society. With such a lack of social acceptance, they often grow up with severe mental issues and social disabilities - like not being able to enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals. Worst case? Well, you homophobic piece of shit, you don't even have to use your imagination. You can just refer to the facts you listed on your own blog."

Homosexuals? Shunned? PUH LEEEEZE.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup:

Tyler,

"The offering of Lot's daughters is a true representation of what happened, not necessarily a representation of what is true."

It's clear that Anon, in the last word of this sentence, meant "right" as in the morally correct sense of the word instead of "true." It was a typo.


(I'm getting whiffs of more of Teapot's sock puppetry...)

Assuming this is the case, GCT has sufficiently demolished the claim.

Dave said...

One of the Anonymous ones wrote:

"if v28 is also rape then why not use the same language"

Which Bible are you reading, Anonymous? V28 in the NIV (which your friend Hindupushup favors) reads this way:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES her"

You are trying to weasel out of what is obvious to everyone here about rape by appealing the the KJ version of the Bible to support your position.

Hindupushup has already made a big deal about the value of the NIV over the KJ version of the Bible. Should I believe him or you?

You simply cherry pick your beliefs from whatever works for you. And that's why we can't trust anything you say.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Homos - want to be able to marry...

[...]

Homosexuals? Shunned? PUH LEEEEZE.


Your ability to contradict yourself from one post to the next is awesome.

lulz...

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

I'm sure if Anon knew me, he would not be my friend. Don't paint him/her with that brush.

That said -> I've already proven that the NIV Deut. 22:28-29 is a law meant to punish and protect. Need we beat a dead horse any further.

That was me jumping into the fight w/o any recon. Recon's done. 22:28-29 doesn't even discuss rape at all bubba. It's addressing fornication between two consenting parties. For rape, see Deut. 22:25.

This whole argument is pointless. Do I have your permission to go now?

Dave said...

"Hindupushup wrote:

"I think you'll concede that 365 years of intervening scholarship and translation of the ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts gives the NIV a little more oomph"

But NOW you've changed your tune, Hindupushup.

Now you opine:

"Perhaps it’s because verses 28-29 do not discuss rape at all but rather a consensual act"

In less than a day you've switched from claiming one version of your holy book, the NIV, is superior to another, the KJV, to suggesting the NIV has it wrong, too.

Why would we trust anything you have to say, when you change your tune from comment to comment?

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler
"Your ability to contradict yourself from one post to the next is awesome.

lulz..."

Did you actually just type lulz? I'm calling your mom and she's going to take your keyboard away from here... after she and I are done making sweet sweet love.

Anyway... you're trying to argue that because two dudes cannot marry that's tantamount to being shunned? Do you know what shunned even means? Are you really this intellectually dishonest

Tell you what... please start shunning me. Now.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

" this law (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) was drafted to punish the rapist while at the same time providing some sort of redress for his victim"

Only you believe marrying a rapist provides some sort of redress.

And of course, now you've switched positions. Now you claim that a true reading of the Bible shows that an unbetrothed, underage virgin who has consensual sex isn't a victim.

If she's not a victim, then why do you claim her male partner is "punished" in this situation?

You're unaware that you've contradicted and corrected yourself over and over again, and so it's difficult to put credence in anything your write.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave -
No, I haven't changed my position on the matter... I still feel that the NIV translation does not condone rape nor does it force the victim to marry the rapist.

I've now presented an entirely different viewpoint all together: that 22:28-29 doesn't discuss rape at all. Whatever translation you choose, be it the KJV, the NIV, or a reading of the old Hebrew, Duet 22:28-29 presents nothing that is immoral in the slightest.

I'm no bibical scholar, I'm a dude posting on some other dude's blog. When I first began responding, I was content to let GCT frame the debate, albeit using an alternate translation (and yes, I feel superior version) of the verse in question.

When I decieded to dig a little deeper into the matter (meaning a quick search on google), I found an article that presents a compelling arguement that the KJV and the NIV have the translation wrong.

The differnece between you and I, sweet sweet Dave, is that I am intellectually honest and when I am presented with a logical arugment superior to my own I am willing to change my position or at least consider the other side. You, on the other hand, you're hellbent on some insane idea that the Bible is evil and you're unwilling to accept that you've made even this tiny and relatively insignificant verse something into way more than what it clearly is.

You're morally superior to me only in your head. Saying that I or any of the anon's condone rape or that we somehow deminish the horrible nature of the crime all but eliminates whatever credibility you ever had, yet I continue to joust with you because I've found it to be entertaining.

The time at work has gone by really fast.

GCT said...

Hindupushup,
"Weak attempt at sidestepping the issue."

OK, let's discuss it. From your own link, we find them trying to use a passage from Exodus and claiming it means the same thing as the one in Deut. even though it uses different wording? Why would that be?

If the passage really does mean that the man and woman had consensual sex together, then you still have the problem of punishing the man by making him marry and support her, while she seems to be making out like a bandit, which doesn't seem at all realistic. It would also encourage women to sleep around in order to pick up husbands and try to get caught in the act, which also doesn't make sense.

"If we agree that the article has some validity (it does), then both of our contentions are wrong or at least very questionable. In other words, if Deut. 22:28-29 does not deal with rape, then your contention that Deut. 22:28-29 forces a raped girl to marry her rapist is false and, as such, cannot be used to question the moral authority of the Bible."

It may have validity, except that the numerous problems with the article (like citing verses that supposedly have a set of words, but really don't as in the example of Genesis 34...) make it rather dubious. None of the translations save the dubious CEV make any indication that this is a consensual arrangement.

If we are both wrong that it means rape and if it really means that two people who have sex should be forced into marriage, then it's less immoral than I thought. It's still immoral, however and my points about your use of relative morality have still gone unanswered. If we were to find two 14 year old kids having sex, do you think it would be moral to force them to get married? If it is not moral now, then why would it be moral then? If it is moral now, then I'd like to see your advocacy of this practice.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"There. Now goodbye for real."

Then Hindupushup wrote:

"Perhaps for you facing down barbs on some guy's blog amounts to courage.

I'm not impressed."

See - we can't believe anything you say. You're back again.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"""Rape" is used in the NIV. Either way, this is a bit irrelevant."

Weak attempt at sidestepping the issue. I want to hear your learned explaination as to why one Hebrew word is used in v25 and another in v28-29? "

There you go again.

First it was the superiority of the NIV of your bible, and now you reject the words in the very same bible in favor of another interpretation you found on a webpage.

You twist and turn and backpedal and appeal now to one source and now another. You claim a man is punished for raping an underage virgin in one sentence, and argue in another that no rape has occurred.

Hindupushup said...

@GCT –
Allow me to address the relative morality aspect you keep referring to first…

You said – “Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?”

I cannot defend this passage without discussing the historical realites of the time when the passage was written, but avoiding a discussion of said historical realities is a perversion of the truth and a wasted intellectual enterprise. Christians do not claim that Dueteronomy sets forth some sort of standard of absolute morality. Indeed, much of the NT contradicts much of the OT. This does not mean, however, that the laws of the OT were immoral, but merely that Christ overturned much of what was written in the ages past.

"It's still immoral, however and my points about your use of relative morality have still gone unanswered. If we were to find two 14 year old kids having sex, do you think it would be moral to force them to get married? If it is not moral now, then why would it be moral then? If it is moral now, then I'd like to see your advocacy of this practice."

Fortunately, we do not live in a society where if a woman loses her virginity then her marriage value drops to zero. We also live in a society with an abundance of food and opportunity for women. I’m surprised at your ethnocentricity; I’d be willing to wager that if you were an observer implanted in a modern day society that subsisted at a level approximate to the Jews in 2000 BC, then you’d find a similar legal remedy in place for the couple. If you caught your 14 year old daughter having sex 2500 years ago, would you not demand that some sort of provision be in place for her to be taken care of? I suppose she could enter the work force (i.e. become a whore), but that’s hardly “moral” now is it?

They were brutal times and yes, the laws in the OT seem brutal to modern eyes at times, but to refuse to look at this through the lens of history is asinine.

“If the passage really does mean that the man and woman had consensual sex together, then you still have the problem of punishing the man by making him marry and support her, while she seems to be making out like a bandit, which doesn't seem at all realistic. It would also encourage women to sleep around in order to pick up husbands and try to get caught in the act, which also doesn't make sense.”

Again, you’re viewing the problem with modern eyes. Fornication, up until very recently (in the grand scheme of things), was considered taboo. The consequences invovled were too dire. I imagine that single mothers did not fare too well in those days unless they came from a particularly forgiving and wealthy family. The arugment you make about the law being unfair to the male is ridiculous. No one’s putting a gun to the guy’s head and making him bang the broad. Also, note that the law states “if they are seen.” This leads be to believe even further that the law is regarding consenual fornication as it is so concerned with the reputations of the parties involved and again it’s making provisions to ensure that the female is cared for.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave,

Quit being so lame.

Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"Whatever translation you choose, be it the KJV, the NIV, or a reading of the old Hebrew, Duet 22:28-29 presents nothing that is immoral in the slightest."

You are in true denial or a great troll.

NIV 22:28: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and RAPES her"

But you know better. With a look at one web page, you've dismissed what you claimed was 365 years of scholarly work that went into producing the NIV bible, with the word "RAPES" in Dut. 22:28.

You're quite a piece of art. I'm going to start assuming you're just a troll, because it's difficult to believe anyone could be all over the place the way you are.

Hindupushup said...

@Dave

I've spent a lot of time on here talking with you people so I'm hardly a "troll,"

but greybeards like you shouldn't be using that word.

Dave said...

"greybeards like you shouldn't be using that word"

Yep, you're a troll. ;-)

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: Did you actually just type lulz? I'm calling your mom and she's going to take your keyboard away from here... after she and I are done making sweet sweet love.

Hey, if you want to get it on with a corpse, knock yourself out. She won't mind.

Hindupushup: Anyway... you're trying to argue that because two dudes cannot marry that's tantamount to being shunned?

Yeah. Clearly I've limited the scope of the shunning of homosexuals in the US to male/male marriage. I'm disregarding lesbian marriage, people like Fred Phelps and his ideological brethren (yourself included), parents disowning their homosexual children - often to the point of kicking them out of their homes, the explicitly and tacitly accepted, promoted and condoned public prejudice against homosexuals, the homosexuals who've been beaten and murdered just because they're homosexual and the fear these acts evoke in homosexuals over something they have no more control over than you do of breathing your own putrid stench...

"Use your imagination," you disingenuous shit stain.

Hindupushup said...

@Tyler

You make homosexuality sound like it's a disease or something... a birth defect. Is that what it is? Enlighten me.

You're comparing millions of state-sanctioned human rights violations in China to relatively statistically insignificant number of homos being victimized at the hands of a number of twisted individuals, individuals who, if found, are incarcerated.

The murders of flamers are exactly that, murders. We in the US treat them as such. What more do you want?

As for parents disowning faggy children. It's regrettable and I do not agree, but apparently you think it's ok for you to force your morals on someone else... though I'm sure you'd object to someone forcing their morals on you.

Tigerboy said...

Do you know what's really fun?

Count the number of times Hinduparsnip says:

"It's tiresome, I'm leaving, Don't talk to me, I won't be back, Can I leave, now?, I grow weary . . . . "

. . . but he/she never leaves.

HP, I'm sorry you are feeling SO put upon. You actually chose to engage in this forum, and have been fairly provocative. If continuing this conversation is that fatiguing, try drinking some Red Bull. It'll give you wings.

Having sex with an entity that does not have the ability to give consent is called rape.

If a priest fucks a choirboy, do we call the choirboy a sinner?

If a farmer fucks a particularly charming sheep, do we blame the sheep?

First century women were chattel. Property. NOT ABLE TO GIVE CONSENT.

To use Hinduparsnip's example, does the crashed Toyota Prius get to choose if it wants to cash the crasher's judgement check? No, it does not.

The woman is a pawn in a game between her rapist and her father, the biased receiver of thirty shekels of silver.

Dad and the Missus are SO ready to unload these daughters and move to Scottsdale. Thirty shekels of silver is a major down payment of that Winnebago he's had his eye on.

The fact of the total disregard of the wishes of the woman makes this whole scenario something less than a demonstration of a perfect moral solution to this crime.

Perhaps we might expect the "revealed word" of moral perfection to be somewhat more impressive.

Offering the father thirty shekels of silver is not quite the perfect solution we seek.

Why is it that the idea that men and women are EQUAL is not being "revealed" to anybody?

Could it be that the only "revelations" are coming from Bronze Age goat herders? Is that a possibility?

Anonymous(2) said...

@Dave:
The question of why God seems silent regarding Lot's sins while judging the sins of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good question. No one who really seeks to understand God's Word reads this narrative and "ignores" Lot's sins. To deal with this fully we would have to delve into discussion of many topics not directly relevant to this post. Unless GCT wishes to move the goalposts to dealing with every Christian doctrine all at once; I will go no further that to note that the problems you have with this narrative are problematic but not forgotten or unconsidered by those who love God.

My point is that detailing a record of evil things is not the same as showing approval of Lot's actions. The Bible also details the actions of Goliath who shouted curses at Israel, are we to understand that this is a call to hurl curses at one another? Let's be a little more honest here.
On that note: GCT is correct in stating that Lot is called a righteous man. GCT prefers to see this as a stamp of approval on all of Lot's actions as righteous. That simply is not the case. In anything, the Bible goes to great lengths to divorce the righteousness God declares of a believer from their actions. Again, we're a bit off topic here; let me know where you want the goalpost and I'll do my best to adjust accordingly.

I have two problems with your assertion that you cannot believe what Christians say because two Christians cited different translations of the Bible to support their interpretation of the Bible. (Although I must admit that Hindupushup has lost a bit of credibility in changing from the superior NIV to a translation that does not contain the word "rape" to support a new 'enlightenment' as to the meaning of this text.)

1. You use the NIV in your argument against me and quote Hindupushup's use of the word, while GCT seems to prefer the KJV. If we are to doubt either sides validity based upon the difference in preferred translation of it's adherents, then I believe you and GCT are in the same boat as Hindupushup and I. Chalk 1 for believers and 1 for atheists.

2. Why does anyone claiming to have an opinion on the Bible and claiming to be a Christian get a pass as the ultimate authority on God's Truth? I don't get that pass and neither does Hindupushup. For that matter, neither does GCT or yourself when any of us claim the meaning of a particular text. For fair treatment the original language and historical context should be considered. Any translator will tell you that there is no language which translates perfectly into another. If we want to consider this text in its original context in an in-depth manner, then we can. GCT did not do so in the OP, and I did not intend on giving any more consideration than the original provocation deserved. (That being, "Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?") Yes, I can. The passage doesn't deal with rape but rather provides rules to maintain social structure and order which would be most beneficial considering the unfortunate sinful situation the two fornicators have found themselves in.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

I believe what I wrote was understood by others. But just to clarify; saying "Lot offered his daughters to be raped" is not the same as saying "Lot did a good and righteous thing by offering up his daughters to be raped". By using the word true each time I was trying my hand at clever wordplay... suppose I didn't do well.

To be clear, let me give you another example. Let's say I'm called into court to testify about a traffic accident I was a witness to. If I testify, "The driver was talking on their cell phone", this does not mean that I condone people talking on their cell phones while driving. I am telling the truth about something that happened, I am not prescribing others act in the same way. The Biblical narratives are true testimonies of the lives of the people in the narrative. Biblical narratives are not, however, prescriptions as to how we should live our lives.

Anonymous (2) said...

@GCT:

Moral principle and moral practice are very different things. A moral principle can be absolute without the practice always looking the same.

For instance; I hold as a moral principle the duty of a man to provide for his family. One man lives that out in practice by farming while another sits in an office all day. One provides by literally growing the food his family will eat. Another earns the means to pay someone else to provide that same food. Has one followed the principle better than the other simply becaue their practices are different?

If the principle is that rape is wrong, or in this case fornication, there are many different practices which could enforce this. I believe (sorry if I'm speaking out of turn for you here) Hindupushup was getting around to saying that given the social climate of Israel, the laws prescribed in the OT demonstrate a principle in practice in their society. The practice will be different today, not because the principle has changed but because the social context in which the principle has been applied has changed.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Hindupushup:

I don't believe Jesus "did away" with the law at all. The law is still a reflection of God's perfect moral principles. The law was designed to show us the nature of our sinfulness to draw us to Christ. It can still do that. Note that Paul declares in Romans that the law of God was not evil but was and is good.

When the Bible says we are no longer under the law, what is the rationale behind that statement? That the law no longer exists? I would suggest re-reading Romans.

The way you are wording things very much buys into the conecpt of am OT God and a NT God which is a myth. If God's character changes, or His principles, then we cannot depend on anything He says as it might change should God's disposition or character change.


I've called myself Anonymous(2) as I was, as far as I can tell, the second anonymous to join this thread.

Tyler said...

Hindupushup: @Tyler

You make homosexuality sound like it's a disease or something... a birth defect.


You're the one running around disparaging homosexuals virtually every time you mention them, and I'm the one who makes homosexuality sound like a disease or birth defect...

You are aware you can overdose on iron-y, right, shit stain?

Hindupushup: You're comparing millions of state-sanctioned human rights violations in China to relatively statistically insignificant number of homos being victimized...

In other words, because there are (allegedly) fewer people affected by state sanctioned human rights violations, it's okay to violate their rights. Got it.

Shit stain.

Hindupushup: ... at the hands of a number of twisted individuals, individuals who, if found, are incarcerated.

Again, disingenuously disregarding the full scope of the human rights violations against homosexuals.

Shit stain.

Hindupushup: ... apparently you think it's ok for you to force your morals on someone else...

How's that, exactly?

Hindupushup: ... though I'm sure you'd object to someone forcing their morals on you.

Is it that obvious, shit stain?

Tyler said...

Anon: My point is that detailing a record of evil things is not the same as showing approval of Lot's actions.

Nowhere is Lot condemned for offering his daughters up for rape. That is, at best, tacit approval of Lot's actions; and considering god sanctioned rape elsewhere in the bible, it's patently ludicrous for you to claim Lot's actions in this regard were evil; and doubly ludicrous to do so while at the same time calling your imaginary friend's morals... moral.

Anon: To be clear, let me give you another example. Let's say I'm called into court to testify about a traffic accident I was a witness to.

That's as clear as mud on a moonless night. Your testimony isn't the issue, you dolt; the issue is the judge (and law) who doesn't find fault in the offending driver's actions.

Anon: The Biblical narratives are true testimonies of the lives of the people in the narrative.

In the same way the narratives in Marvel comics are testimonies of the life of Spiderman...

Dave said...

Tigerboy wrote:

"but he/she never leaves"

It's possible to visit Hindupushup's own blog, where we learn his gender and learn that he:

- Likes to wrestle

- Spent time in a military academy (where he presumably enjoyed close encounters with other male cadets)

- Would rather spend his downtime alone or in an activity that doesn't involve women

- Prefers the company of a dog to a woman (well, maybe that's not such a bad thing).

- Doesn't think he's "'secretly gay"

- Wonders if anyone is reading his blog

- Thinks orphans are better off in a Catholic orphanage than with a gay couple - he's got a lot of priests supporting him with that contention

- Enjoys performing a cool pushup that looks like the act of rhythmic sexual penetration.

What more needs to be known about him?

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote:

"The question of why God seems silent regarding Lot's sins while judging the sins of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good question."

You doubted me?

"My point is that detailing a record of evil things is not the same as showing approval of Lot's actions."

Again, you completely miss the point. God acts in an immoral and inconsistent way at times, as with the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah.

One of the reasons this inconsistency and immorality works for true believers is that it allows them to demonize "others." We did it long ago, and we still demonize others - from gays to to Saddam Hussein - today. And in demonizing everyone except Lot and his family in Sodom and Gomorrah, true believers can understand why their god would kill even the obviously innocent, like infants, and overlook the transgressions of someone supposedly "righteous" like Lot (who is anything but).

That you throw in the example of Goliath shows that you've been taken in by this very trick to bind you to your faith. You're right, though, just because an activity occurs in the bible doesn't mean your god endorses it.

However, the issue isn't whether or not whatever occurs in the bible is sanctioned by your god. It's your god's inconsistency and immorality that he demonstrates over and over again that is the issue

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, though, is just that, a story. It never happened. The events described in it are metaphorical. Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt, for example, isn't to be taken literally. It's to be taken as an example of what happens when we turn our back on our faith.

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I must admit that Hindupushup has lost a bit of credibility in changing from the superior NIV to a translation that does not contain the word "rape" to support a new 'enlightenment' as to the meaning of this text."

So, I'm to believe you're right, anon? Yet I've got Hindupushup telling me the opposite, that you've erred in thinking the "scholarship" of the past 365 years that was put into the NIV is suspect, at best.

Dave said...

"1. You use the NIV in your argument against me and quote Hindupushup's use of the word, while GCT seems to prefer the KJV. If we are to doubt either sides validity based upon the difference in preferred translation of it's adherents, then I believe you and GCT are in the same boat as Hindupushup and I. Chalk 1 for believers and 1 for atheists."

No, Anon. This merely shows that neighter version of the bible can't be trusted, not that I or GTC is wrong.

That you and Hindupushup both profess to believe in the literal accounts in the bible, and believe its moral prescriptions, and then fail to agree on what the literal accounts say, and what the more prescriptions are, means that neither of your can be trusted.

That you can't see this seems odd, but then, you have a faith that works even against evidence. I.e., you've been brainwashed.

2. "... For fair treatment the original language and historical context should be considered. Any translator will tell you that there is no language which translates perfectly into another."

Then it's pointless to suggest you have anything that's of value or that's truthful, since you've admitted we can't even know what your bible actually says about anything.

You demonstrate the human ability to accept conflicting concepts. The Bible includes the words of your god, yet you've admitted we don't know what the words are.

That you can't see that you hold opposite viewpoints seems odd, yet it's understandable because you've been brainwashed.

GCT and I and others don't have your problem. We are consistent in our denial that the contradictions and absurdities in the Bible are just that - contradictions and absurdities.

Dave said...

Anonymous wrote:

"Biblical narratives are not, however, prescriptions as to how we should live our lives."

Come on now, you lie even to yourself. You assert that the story of Lot's unnamed wife turning to a pillar of salt has no moral? Then shame on you for turning your back on your own holy book.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"If the principle is that rape is wrong, or in this case fornication, there are many different practices which could enforce this."

Yes, true. That doesn't mean that the practices are moral. Forcing or suggesting a girl marry her rapist/fornicator is morally abhorrent, no matter how much you try to dress it up.

In your example with two men (why men?) providing for their families, what if one of the men is Bernie Madoff?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

The original provocation: "Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?"

To which I argued the passage in question does not deal with rape. Therefore the passage is 'defend(ed) with a straight face' and I 'still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide' in light of the fact that while men in Ethiopia have distorted the meaning of this practice to justify their wicked behavior, they are not justified in doing so. (as a proper understanding of the text shows)

To break it down further:
GCT had a complaint that God was immoral because he condoned rape and rewarded the rapist with marriage to his victim. As this is not what the verse (law) prescribes GCT's original argument rings hollow.

Now, if you wish to move the goalposts at this point to argue whether or not it is moral to force two young (or old) fornicators into marriage would make more sense than what you are trying.

You have cited the story of Lot as another example of God prescribing evil acts as moral. I have refuted this by pointing out that telling of an evil act in a narrative is not the same as sanctioning or prescribing that act be reproduced. You seem to see that when you write, "You're right, though, just because an activity occurs in the bible doesn't mean your god endorses it."

You then, however, follow that statement up with, "However, the issue isn't whether or not whatever occurs in the bible is sanctioned by your god. It's your god's inconsistency and immorality that he demonstrates over and over again that is the issue"

Actually, the issue was, "Is there anyone out there that can defend this passage with a straight face and also still claim that the Bible should be used as a moral guide?" which is very different than answering why God deals with the same sins differently with some people than others. (Which would have been relevent in a way if GCT had originally asked why God prescribes death for a rapist in v25 and marriage in v28, however even this question rings hollow in light of the fact this passage doesn't deal with rape.)

I wonder do you subscribe with GCT's thought that 'true' morality is what we have agreed upon as a society? (GCT wrote, "Not at all. There need not be an absolute standard - we only need an agreed upon standard.") Or do you believe there is an absolute moral standard? But then, now we're dealing with morality in general and not really with Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Still, just perhaps for my curiosity?

I disagree with your last point regarding narratives. I am one of those crazy folk who believe the Bible stories happened exactly as recorded. (Noah and all)

@Tyler:

Think we're on different wavelengths now. My analogy was clearly NOT relative to Deut. 22, but was rather meant to highlight my point regarding Lot's narrative (that not all actions contained in narratives reflect moral standards).

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"I don't believe Jesus "did away" with the law at all. The law is still a reflection of God's perfect moral principles."

There we go again. Christians who can't agree yet again.

Atheists don't have this problem, because we don't hold to a belief system filled with contradictions, absurdities, and examples of immoral behavior on the part of a god.

"If God's character changes, or His principles, then we cannot depend on anything He says as it might change should God's disposition or character change. "

Exactly, Anon 2! Now you're getting it. And of course, this is exactly what happens. Your god changes character, over and over and over again.

Atheists don't need a god to inform them of what's moral. We can know without believing in a god that rape is wrong, that murder is wrong, that theft is wrong.

Believers, though, must rely on the "unchanging" words of their god. Yet we see over and over again that your god does change his stripes. Even poor Hindupushup, though he probably doesn't realize it, knows that god isn't the same all the time.

That you are only dimly aware that your belief system is build on a foundation of sand is a pity, since you seem intelligent enough otherwise.

That you can't see that the divisions of belief between you and Anon 1 and Hindupushup lead inexorably to the conclusion that you're all wrong is a pity, as you seem fairly intelligent.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "So, I'm to believe you're right, anon? Yet I've got Hindupushup telling me the opposite, that you've erred in thinking the "scholarship" of the past 365 years that was put into the NIV is suspect, at best."

So by virtue of a disagreement the text is discredited? Couldn't I just offer a different interpretation for ANY text I wanted to 'discredit'? If we were to operate by your rules we wouldn't be able to accept real meaning behind any written word (including mine and yours). So, if I say I believe the proper interpretation of what you've written thus far is that God is real and moral... then a third party observer cannot believe either of us because we have offered variant interpretations of the same text?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "No, Anon. This merely shows that neighter version of the bible can't be trusted, not that I or GTC is wrong."

No, if you apply your argument directly (that Hindupushup and I are discredited because we cannot agree upon a translation for our interpretation) to GCT and yourself (that GCT and yourself use variant translations for your interpretations) then we are all equally discredited. Is GCT's KJV argument correct or is your NIV?

You wrote: "That you and Hindupushup both profess to believe in the literal accounts in the bible, and believe its moral prescriptions, and then fail to agree on what the literal accounts say, and what the more prescriptions are, means that neither of your can be trusted."

I say the sky is blue. He says it is neon yellow. Neither of us can agree despite our interaction with this supposed sky therefore we are both dillusional and the sky doesn't exist? It actually has no true color? Disagreement indicates nullity?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"Then it's pointless to suggest you have anything that's of value or that's truthful, since you've admitted we can't even know what your bible actually says about anything."

No, and apologies because I did tend to make it seem that way. I believe there are reliable translations, but language changes over time (read Shakespear lately?) and so we must be diligent if we are to discover which translation or interpretation of a text is 'better'.

You wrote: "GCT and I and others don't have your problem. We are consistent in our denial that the contradictions and absurdities in the Bible are just that - contradictions and absurdities."

We may disagree but if we are to be general then I would state that both Hindupushup and I are consistent in our affirmation of the Bible as absolute and authoritative when it comes to morals.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"Come on now, you lie even to yourself. You assert that the story of Lot's unnamed wife turning to a pillar of salt has no moral? Then shame on you for turning your back on your own holy book."

I didn't say there was no moral in the story. I said it didn't prescribe the actions contained in the stories. IE: The story of Lot's wife doesn't teach us to look back. The story of Lot's daughters wasn't meant to teach us to sleep with our parents. We are to learn from the stories, not emulate the behavior displayed in them.

"In your example with two men (why men?) providing for their families, what if one of the men is Bernie Madoff?"

(why men?) I believe my wife does a far better job managing our home than I could. And she enjoys that more than she does working outside the home (which she has done in the past). I suppose I was projecting a bit?

You wrote: "There we go again. Christians who can't agree yet again."

Again, anyone claiming to be a Christian gets a pass as the authority?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"Come on now, you lie even to yourself. You assert that the story of Lot's unnamed wife turning to a pillar of salt has no moral? Then shame on you for turning your back on your own holy book."

I didn't say there was no moral in the story. I said it didn't prescribe the actions contained in the stories. IE: The story of Lot's wife doesn't teach us to look back. The story of Lot's daughters wasn't meant to teach us to sleep with our parents. We are to learn from the stories, not emulate the behavior displayed in them.

"In your example with two men (why men?) providing for their families, what if one of the men is Bernie Madoff?"

(why men?) I believe my wife does a far better job managing our home than I could. And she enjoys that more than she does working outside the home (which she has done in the past). I suppose I was projecting a bit?

You wrote: "There we go again. Christians who can't agree yet again."

Again, anyone claiming to be a Christian gets a pass as the authority?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "That you can't see that the divisions of belief between you and Anon 1 and Hindupushup lead inexorably to the conclusion that you're all wrong is a pity, as you seem fairly intelligent."

While I disagree with the first premise, I appreciate the second.

(sorry for the previous double post, using laptop and double clicked... never had it double post like that before. Didn't see a way to remove it)

Hindupushup said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hindupushup said...

@Dave

I wrote a nasty little response to you but thought the better of it.

Goodnight now.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: Think we're on different wavelengths now.

I'd say that qualifies as the understatement of the millennium thus far...

Anon: My analogy was clearly NOT relative to Deut. 22...

I clearly wasn't addressing it in the context of Deut. 22, you dolt.

Anon: ... but was rather meant to highlight my point regarding Lot's narrative (that not all actions contained in narratives reflect moral standards).

I never claimed there is a biblical moral imperative to offer one's virgin daughters up for rape. Straw man much?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

Sorry for my misunderstanding however...

You said: "That's as clear as mud on a moonless night. Your testimony isn't the issue, you dolt; the issue is the judge (and law) who doesn't find fault in the offending driver's actions."

Now you say: "I never claimed there is a biblical moral imperative to offer one's virgin daughters up for rape. Straw man much?"

I assumed that you weren't implying the latter, which leaves your reference to the "law" in the former to be a reference to what exactly? (As you claim you weren't examining my analogy in reference to Deut. 22)

Also of note... in the story of Lot there was no evaluation of Lot's offer of his daughters. (This seems the most logical application of your reference to a 'judge' in light of the context of the 'Lot' discussion thus far.) You, however, seem to be implying God is the judge. Since He offered no verdict on Lot's actions then either your first comment is irrelevent or your latter comment is dishonest or perhaps you're just confused.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave said...

Hindupushup wrote:

"@Dave

I wrote a nasty little response to you but thought the better of it."

Thanks for that an I apologize if I went over the line with my previous comments.

Dave said...

Anon 2,

I think I've been too sharp with you with my responses, and I apologize. We've both made several points and counterpoints. I'm not sure it's worth going on, and not sure why I want to - what's the point in deconverting you? - but I'll give it a go for at least a while more.

"So by virtue of a disagreement the text is discredited? Couldn't I just offer a different interpretation for ANY text I wanted to 'discredit'?"

Part of the problem I have with you and Hindupushup and Anonymous 2 is that:

You can't agree what the words in the Bible mean, much less interpret them. Does a word mean "rape" or "lover?" Is it "woman" or "girl?" Do we have to know the original language of the Jews, or Greek? You can't agree on any of this.

You can't agree on which version of your Bible to use, much less interpret what the differing words in them mean.

We've got one of the Anon's claiming that there are hidden meanings in the Bible that take intelligence and training to comprehend. And we've got - I think you - saying there are no hidden meanings.

We have one of you claiming the OT "laws" have been overturned by the NT. And you claiming that the laws have not been overturned.

If the three of you can't agree with each other on what the words are, and even what they mean, and if you can't agree on which book to use, then there's nothing to interpret.

So this isn't a matter of my disagreement with the text. It's you, Hindupushup and Anon 1 who:

- can't decide on which Bible to use

- can't agree on which words to use to discuss a passage in your bible, or even agree on what the words mean

- can't agree on whether you have to be intelligent or not to understand the Bible

- and even argue if the passages have hidden meanings or not.

So we can't get to interpreting what's in the Bible, because none of you here who claim to be Xians can tell us atheists what you're talking about.

Do you follow me? I wish this were a face to face, Socratic discussion. For now it must play out here, but I hope you're trying to follow me.

I'm going to make a follow-up comment to discuss the idea of interpretation itself. And then I'll try to apply the concept of interpretation to at least one story in the Bible.

It's a story that I think you, Anon 1 and Hindupushup and even I see the same way, at least on the basic story level. It's a story we have already discussed, a story which is reasonably the same in every version of the Bible. And it still lends itself to the concept of interpretation.

So stick with me, please. And again, I apologize for being at least a little to mean-spirited in my prior comments to you.

GCT said...

Hindupushup,
"I cannot defend this passage without discussing the historical realites of the time when the passage was written, but avoiding a discussion of said historical realities is a perversion of the truth and a wasted intellectual enterprise."

Dealing with the relative morality issue is longer than a comment allows. I'll be posting on it this afternoon if at all possible.

"Christians do not claim that Dueteronomy sets forth some sort of standard of absolute morality."

Yeah, actually it's implied. See my post I put up later.

"Indeed, much of the NT contradicts much of the OT."

Yes. Yes it does. What does that tell you about god's supposed attributes?

"This does not mean, however, that the laws of the OT were immoral, but merely that Christ overturned much of what was written in the ages past."

Again, see my post later.

"I’m surprised at your ethnocentricity..."

There's no ethnocentricity here...you are not catching the thrust of the argument if you think that's the case.

"I’d be willing to wager that if you were an observer implanted in a modern day society that subsisted at a level approximate to the Jews in 2000 BC, then you’d find a similar legal remedy in place for the couple."

Do you mean to claim that if I were a product of that culture that treated women like property that I would be likely to do the same?

"Again, you’re viewing the problem with modern eyes."

Absolute morality does not change depending on what timeframe you live in.

"The arugment you make about the law being unfair to the male is ridiculous. No one’s putting a gun to the guy’s head and making him bang the broad. Also, note that the law states “if they are seen.” This leads be to believe even further that the law is regarding consenual fornication as it is so concerned with the reputations of the parties involved and again it’s making provisions to ensure that the female is cared for."

I disagree. The scenarios you put forth would incentivize a woman to try to bed a man (fornication) and be caught in order to secure a husband that can not run away from her by law. This, it would appear, would contradict your other assertions that this sort of thing was looked down upon.

GCT said...

Anon 2,
"Moral principle and moral practice are very different things. A moral principle can be absolute without the practice always looking the same."

If you restrict your focus, this may be true to some extent. However, I would counter that forced marriage is wrong, and should be absolutely so if there exists absolute morality...or any number of other things. Remember, these things don't exist in a vaccuum.

"If the principle is that rape is wrong, or in this case fornication, there are many different practices which could enforce this."

1. Choosing immoral "remedies" still indicts your god.
2. See my post I'll be putting up today.
3. It is far from demonstrated that this passage does not speak of rape. The argument (link) provided had numerous logical problems that have yet to be addressed.

"I wonder do you subscribe with GCT's thought that 'true' morality is what we have agreed upon as a society?"

This is a complete misunderstanding of what I said and the concept of morality in general.

As per Lot...god claims that Lot is righteous even though he offers up his daughters. The angels don't rescind the offer. In fact, they don't seem to care at all. Never is Goliath claimed to be righteous.

As per NIV vs. KJV...The KJV is known to be a pretty bad translation and my use of it here isn't meant to imply that I favor it over other translations. Most times I simply pick the first one that comes up when I reference a verse, mostly because I don't care which translation one uses.

Dave said...

Anon 2,

Before I launch into interpreting the Bible, you didn't answer my question about the practice of morality. You wrote:

"Another earns the means to pay someone else to provide that same food. Has one followed the principle better than the other simply becaue their practices are different?"

If it's Bernie Madoff who earns the means to pay someone else to pride that same food, then moral principle enters the picture - principle and practice are not so neatly separated when we get down to cases.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler Sorry for my misunderstanding...

'Don't be sorry, sweetheart. Just don't do it again.'

Anon: I assumed that you weren't implying the latter, which leaves your reference to the "law" in the former to be a reference to what exactly? (As you claim you weren't examining my analogy in reference to Deut. 22)

Uhm... tell ya what; let's just stick with the bible and forget all about unnecessarily complicating the matter with your inability to follow (a logical deconstruction of) your own faulty analogy, kay?

Anon: Also of note... in the story of Lot there was no evaluation of Lot's offer of his daughters.

That's the entire point, you thick pratt. Like I said, "Nowhere is Lot condemned for offering his daughters up for rape." Not in the story, not in the rest of the bible - nowhere.

Anon:You, however, seem to be implying God is the judge.

Wtf? Are you implying god isn't the judge?

lulz...

I'm not implying anything; I'm explicitly stating it as fact. According to the bible, god is the judge of what is morally permissible and what is not.

And not only does god not offer an evaluative condemnation of Lot for offering his daughters up for rape, Lot is referred to as "just" and "righteous" elsewhere in the bible. You know, the bible - the allegedly inspired word of that disgusting imaginary friend of yours, Yahweh.

Anon: Since He offered no verdict on Lot's actions then...

... he didn't condemn Lot's actions, which, for the umpteenth time, is the entire point.

Anon: ... either your first comment is irrelevent[sic] or your latter comment is dishonest or perhaps you're just confused.

The available options are: A. you're an inhumane piece of shit who's too stupid to understand a simple point; or B. you're a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote:
"Part of the problem I have with you and Hindupushup and Anonymous 2 is that:

You can't agree what the words in the Bible mean, much less interpret them. Does a word mean "rape" or "lover?" Is it "woman" or "girl?" Do we have to know the original language of the Jews, or Greek? You can't agree on any of this."


This only matters if Anonymous, Hindupushup and myself are equal authorities on interpretation. My point is that no one, including myself, gets a 'pass' as an authority. Where disagreement occurs it does not suggest invalidity of both parties. Again, following this logic all I would have to do is enter this blog in the future claiming to be an atheist and then offer a variant interpretation of Darwin's works to discredit them entirely.

You wrote: "So we can't get to interpreting what's in the Bible, because none of you here who claim to be Xians can tell us atheists what you're talking about."

Textual criticism goes beyond personal opinion. Where we can't agree upon interpretation we can examine the method used to arrive at an interpretation and dispute the method to determine who's method is superiour. If this were true than any student first learning Shakespeare is on equal footing with the learned scholar when it comes to interpretation of the text. (I certainly had some interesting ideas about what 'hoisted by their own pitards' might have meant before I learned it's true meaning.)

Dave said...

Anon 2 - now about interpreting the Bible (or any text).

Let's find some text on which you and Hindupushup and Anon 1 can agree, as far as the meaning of the words and the words themselves.

Let's look at Lot's wife. In the story which mentions her, God doesn't want anyone to turn around to look at his destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot's wife does turn around and she's turned into a pillar of salt.

I think we can all agree that this is so. Lot's wife turns around and is turned into a pillar of salt.

Can we interpret something about the story that goes beyond the mere words?

If we can, let's at least try to understand what you and I mean by "interpretation."

Dictionaries are like bibles - they don't necessarily agree. However, I think we can agree with the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which defines the word "interpret" or "interpretation" to mean

"to explain or tell the meaning of" and

"to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance" and

"to represent by means of art - bring to realization by performance or direction"

That third definition is a bit suspect for our purposes, but if we were to see the Bible as an artistic presentation (whether or not what it says is true), it could work.

OK. So to interpret something is to explain it. Are there, then, different ways to interpret or explain what happens to Lot's wife?

I can see at least a couple of interpretations.

One is the bare bones, literal story itself. Lot's wife didn't listen to her god, turns around, and suffers the consequences.

A second interpretation might look beyond the bare bones story for a different explanation of what the words mean. That is, the story about Lot's wife might also stand for something else (i.e., is it a metaphor).

I think we can interpret the story beyond the mere words. You might, too. I think, for example, that the punishment Lot's wife received is a metaphor - a stand-in - for what happens when we don't put all our faith in God. It's along "the wages of sin is death." Without faith, there can be terrible consequences. Without holding fast to God's words, we can be lost.

Let me go father with this. While you might disagree with me, I don't think the story of Lot, and Sodom and Gomorrah is literally true. I think it's only a metaphor, something that does stand for something else. I do think it's a story about the importance of faith, and it's demonstrated by the story of what happens to Lot's wife.

The Bible could say: "Have faith, oh believer, and let it not lapse, lest God destroy you." And it does say so, but it does so with the story about Lot's wife.

You, though, might think the story is both literally true and a metaphor.

Here's what I'm leading to. If you think that every story and every observation in the Bible might not be literally true, but might instead be a metaphor for something else, then perhaps the Bible is ALL a metaphor, including the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Dave said...

Anon 2,

The Bible could have said something like, "OK, there is no metaphorical meaning in this part of the Bible." Or it could have said, "This part of the Bible here IS metaphor; over here, this IS literal."

It doesn't do that, though. Which means much of the Bible is open to interpretation.

For me, I think the Bible is all metaphor, tied up in some stories and sayings. The stories themselves are obviously often absurd. The stories are obviusly contradictory. They are creations of their own time, reflecting the way things were in a part of the world a few thousand years ago.

And these stories have indeed been reinterpreted over the past two thousand years, which is why you and Hindupushup and Anon 1 can't even agree about what words are IN the Bible, or which Bible to use or what the words in them mean.

If we look beyond the stories, then the metaphors, some of them, can make sense, whether or not we agree with what they teach.

In that sense, I can believe in some of what's in the Bible. But when we break it down to cases, the stories that form the metaphors are just numbingly absurd, including the story about Jesus. That you believe in them makes me feel a little sorry for you, Anon 2. Then again, why shouldn't you be able to hold onto your faith?

Whether you should hold onto your faith or not, the stories in the bible, the sayings, the "laws," are just plain ridiculous, including the idea that a man who has sex with an underage, unmarried virgin would have a god-sanctioned right to marry her.

Anonymous (2) said...

@GCT:

"If you restrict your focus, this may be true to some extent. However, I would counter that forced marriage is wrong, and should be absolutely so if there exists absolute morality...or any number of other things. Remember, these things don't exist in a vaccuum."

I do not believe forced marriage is immoral in the situation I believe the Bible is refrencing in Deuteronomy 22. It's talionic in it's approach to justice. The man and woman violated God's standard of marriage by experiencing something reserved for marriage outside of that context. Now they are forced to live out the committment which should have preceded the physical act of enjoyment they participated in.

You wrote: "1. Choosing immoral "remedies" still indicts your god.
2. See my post I'll be putting up today.
3. It is far from demonstrated that this passage does not speak of rape. The argument (link) provided had numerous logical problems that have yet to be addressed."

1. I see your point but disagree that talionic justice is immoral.
2. I will.
3. Granted. However, given the amount of evidence provided thus far in the discussion, I would say we are at least on equal footing. I believe a more in-depth treatment of the original language, cultural context and the context of the passage itself would be required to fully demonstrate either of our interpretations as correct.

You wrote: "This is a complete misunderstanding of what I said and the concept of morality in general."

I apologize. What, then, is the basis for the morality which indicts the Bible's law as immoral?

You wrote: "As per Lot..."

See my next post to Dave.

You wrote: "Most times I simply pick the first one that comes up when I reference a verse, mostly because I don't care which translation one uses."

Fair enough. Much could be said in the 'best Bible translation' debate. I'll leave it by saying I believe consideration of the original language and cultural setting is always key to understanding any ancient text.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"This only matters if Anonymous, Hindupushup and myself are equal authorities on interpretation. My point is that no one, including myself, gets a 'pass' as an authority. Where disagreement occurs it does not suggest invalidity of both parties."

I can see you're hopeless. You don't seem to be able to think through your own words, Anon 2. If you can't speak with authority, what are you doing here?

At least Hindupushup THINKS he's correct. You can't go that far with your own thoughts. For whatever reason, you can't see that at least three self-professed Christians making contradictory claims about the same ideas means that none of the claims can be trusted.

So yes, you've all invalidated each other's beliefs.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"I would have to do is enter this blog in the future claiming to be an atheist and then offer a variant interpretation of Darwin's works to discredit them entirely."

First of all, it's possible to believe in a god - maybe not the Christian one - and also believe in evolution.

Secondly, you'd have to back up your "variant interpretation" of Darwin's works to discredit them. If you could do that, you'd be the most famous person in the world.

Because you're stuck in a hopeless world of faith, you don't realize, Anon 2, that science - knowledge - does allow for change. If someone comes up with a better idea that explains - interprets - the world around us, that idea will stick.

But if someone like you or Hindupushup or Anon 1 claims that the word "fossil" means "soft tissue" or that "evolution" refers to the color blue, or even if you argue that the Theory of Evolution can never be invalidated, then no, you haven't invalidated Darwin's ideas about the world around us.

That you can't see this is what's sad, in the sense that you have a rather restricted, instead of a rich, view of the world around you.

Tyler said...

Anon: This only matters if Anonymous, Hindupushup and myself are equal authorities on interpretation.

Interpretation?

"Every word of God is pure... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

You blasphemer.

Anon: I do not believe forced marriage is immoral in the situation.

Ergo, by any rational standard, you are an immoral, inhumane piece of shit.

Dave said...

"Where we can't agree upon interpretation we can examine the method used to arrive at an interpretation and dispute the method to determine who's method is superiour."

Well, get back to us when you think you've figured that out.

As you say yourself, you three (and by extension millions of fellows Xians) have failed to agree upon an interpretation of the Bible. But you HAVE been disputing the methods used to arrive at an interpretation. That's your problem, except you can't see it.

YOU, for example, claim the meaning of the words in the Bible don't change, that they say what they say.

HINDUPUSHUP claims scholarly study points the way to changed meanings of the words in the Bible. You deny that can be so.

Not only can you agree on the interpretation of the Bible, you can't even agree on HOW to interpret it.

Rhetorically speaking, what, then, are you doing here, on this blog, making any kind of claim at all, if you think you have no basis for making such claims?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "If it's Bernie Madoff who earns the means to pay someone else to pride that same food, then moral principle enters the picture - principle and practice are not so neatly separated when we get down to cases."

Two moral principles. One practice. First moral principle, "provide for your family". Second moral principle, "don't rip other people off". The practice, "provide for other people by ripping people off".

Has Bernie followed his first moral principle? Yes. Has he followed all of my (our?) moral principles? No.

When I expouse my belief in the Bible as an absolute authority on morality, I do not believe that the one source indicates only one moral principle.

@Tyler:

You wrote: "And not only does god not offer an evaluative condemnation of Lot for offering his daughters up for rape, Lot is referred to as "just" and "righteous" elsewhere in the bible. You know, the bible - the allegedly inspired word of that disgusting imaginary friend of yours, Yahweh."

The reference to Lot as righteous is (again) not a reference to Lot's actions (or character) at all. The Bible contains large portions of text describing our righteousness as not our own. Lot is not declared righteous even though he offered his daughters up. Lot is declared righteous despite the wicked thing he had intent on doing to his daughters.

When Abram prays on behalf of Sodom and asks God to spare the city... is he unaware of the wicked people living within? Are we to understand that by 'righteous' the prayer meant 'perfect'? Lot is not a perfect man, far from it, but is righteous because of his faith.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

I beleive the problem with interpretation you're having is one of the question being asked. When the Bible says Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt... there are a number of ways we can examine the text.

First we can ask "what". "What" is the Bible saying happend. You claim the Bible hasn't described anything that actually happened. The "what" to you is a story has been told. The "what" to me is that Lot's wife disobeyed and was turned into a pillar of salt as a result. We can also ask "what" is the message the reader was intended to take from the text. We can also ask "what" (if any) are the practical applications for us today...

Next we can ask "why". This can also be divided. "Why" did Lot's wife look back? "Why" did God turn her into a pillar of salt? "Why" did it matter to God if the people looked back?

All these questions involve our interpretation of the text. Thus interpretation may involve answering more than just a one-dimensional question regarding a narrative which was not written to be one-dimensional.

As to how we can take one part of the Bible to be symbolic and another to be literal... when it records that Jesus is telling a parable... I don't take that as literal. When the Bible records a narrative, it's literal. When the Bible claims to record a poem (psalm) or a vision (prophecy) or any other genre of literature we must examine the literary work in that context.

And I never said I thought I was wrong. I said no one gets a pass as an authority. You shouldn't accept me (or anyone else) as an authority on the basis that we make the claim to be an authority.

You wrote: "Secondly, you'd have to back up your "variant interpretation" of Darwin's works to discredit them. If you could do that, you'd be the most famous person in the world. "

I agree. Unfortunately you hold no such standard for those who claim to properly interpret ancient texts (the Bible included). For some reason scholars of ancient works of literature are initiated by making the claim to be such.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

You wrote: "Interpretation?

"Every word of God is pure... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

You blasphemer."

When you drive and come to a stop sign you read the letters and then interpret what that means. You didn't change or add to the sign by understanding the intended meaning of the sign. But you did have to process the words (however quickly your brain did that for you) and discover their meaning. That is interpretation. I've tried to keep up with you but you're so random and refuse to respond or defend anything you've said. Do you have anything to "add" to the dialogue?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

You wrote: "Interpretation?

"Every word of God is pure... Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

You blasphemer."

When you drive and come to a stop sign you read the letters and then interpret what that means. You didn't change or add to the sign by understanding the intended meaning of the sign. But you did have to process the words (however quickly your brain did that for you) and discover their meaning. That is interpretation. I've tried to keep up with you but you're so random and refuse to respond or defend anything you've said. Do you have anything to "add" to the dialogue?

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"Lot is not a perfect man, far from it, but is righteous because of his faith."

So according to you, Hitler

- who professed faith in Jesus

- who handed out the Iron Cross (symoblizing the cross borne by the Teutonic Knights in the 14th century)

- who posed before churches for photographs with his Nazi subordinates and the troops

- and whose private notes discuss his thoughts about Christianity

could be considered righteous because of his faith.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"When the Bible records a narrative, it's literal."

Is the story of Lot's wife literal or a parable?

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

" For some reason scholars of ancient works of literature are initiated by making the claim to be such."

What does "initiated" mean? I think you've used the wrong word.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

If Hitler truly repented and placed his faith in Jesus, then yes, he "could" have been declared righteous. (Note that belief in God and faith are not the same.)The Bible delcaring Lot to be righteous is God's evaluation of Lot. It's not a liscense for us to go around judging who is in and who is out.

The story of Lot's wife is part of a Biblical narrative. I believe it records true events in the way they happened. The story of the true event is told in narrative form and is not meant to be an exhaustive historical account of the event, but rather an accurate account which does convey meaning to the audience.

By "initiated" I mean it in the third sense taken from dictionary.com: "To admit into membership, as with ceremonies or ritual." IE: They have become a Biblical authority by virtue of their claim to be so. You've already claimed I could not do so with the works of Darwin, raise your standards for the Bible.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"By "initiated" I mean it in the third sense taken from dictionary.com: "To admit into membership, as with ceremonies or ritual." IE: They have become a Biblical authority by virtue of their claim to be so. You've already claimed I could not do so with the works of Darwin, raise your standards for the Bible."

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

As for your claim that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, that a god rained down fire and brimstone, that there was a Lot, tells me all I need to know about you.

Dave said...

Anon wrote,

"If Hitler truly repented and placed his faith in Jesus, then yes, he "could" have been declared righteous."

And is this true, too, if he repented and placed his faith in Jesus a decade before he took power in Germany? Or just at the moment before his death?

I think that you believe your god could have declared Hitler righteous, despite his actions, which include killing millions of people, tells me more than I want to know about you.

Not that I'm surprised. For you believe also beleive a man who offers up his daughters to a mob to be gang-raped was righteous, too.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here."

You believe that Anonymous, Hindupushup and I all have equal validity in our interpretations of the Biblical text. It seems that the only reason you have for granting each of us this 'validity' is our claim of Christianhood or perhaps because we all seek a common goal of defending the text. My point is that not everyone who wants to be on the team gets a pass as an authority. Examine the validity of our claims in light of what the text says (or in light of our interpretive method) but don't assume that we somehow invalidate one another by virtue of our lack of agreement.

Hindupushup further complicates this by jumping ship as though either he or I could be correct and his view still be valid. That is not the case. If my view is invalid I cannot simply jump to another view I once held in error but which is still on "my side". If my view is in error it would make more sense to consider the view of the one who invalidated my interpretation.

In the case listed above I believe that it was my suggestion which caused Hindupushup to question his stance, however he conceded to GCT and made the outlandish claim that either my view or his could be correct and that be alright. Certainly we are arguing for the same cause, however (as you have pointed out) our interpretations are not able to be reconciled to one another. This being the case, this is not a case of GCT and Dave vs. the anonomi (anonypode? is it greek?) and Hindupushup. In my view Hindupushup misrepresents the text as does GCT and yourself. IE: I am arguing against both yourself and Hindupushup.

I'm not sure I know how else to clarify this...

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: The reference to Lot as righteous is (again) not a reference to Lot's actions (or character) at all.

righteous - acting in accord with divine or moral law

Your disingenuousness is boundless...

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"And is this true, too, if he repented and placed his faith in Jesus a decade before he took power in Germany? Or just at the moment before his death?"

If Hitler truly repented and came to place his faith in Jesus, then yes he would have been forgiven and justified. He would have been declared righteous by God. Based upon Hitler's life (what I know of it anyway) it doesn't appear that he was a repentant sinner, but I am not his ultimate judge. God is.

You wrote: "Not that I'm surprised. For you believe also beleive a man who offers up his daughters to a mob to be gang-raped was righteous, too."

If our righteousness was based upon our actions, then yes it would be wrong to say Lot was 'righteous'. Again, not based upon us or our actions. This isn't what the Bible teaches about the nature of sin or salvation.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: When you drive and come to a stop sign you read the letters and then interpret what that means.

You are indisputably adding meaning to passages. That's not interpreting, that's adding meaning.

Anon: I've tried to keep up with you...

All you've tried to do is get around the patent immorality of your religion by playing word games.

Anon: ... but you're so random and refuse to respond or defend anything you've said.

I'm "random" because I don't bother to respond to every single line of your vacuous tripe.

What, exactly, have I said that needs to be "defended"? Back up your claim.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

You wrote: "righteous - acting in accord with divine or moral law

Your disingenuousness is boundless..."

Romans 4:1-8 " 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather (A)according to the flesh, has found?
2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but (B)not before God.

3For what does the Scripture say? "(C)ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

4Now to the one who (D)works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.

5But to the one who does not work, but (E)believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

6just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7"(F)BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,
AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8"(G)BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT (H)TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

You wrote: "You are indisputably adding meaning to passages. That's not interpreting, that's adding meaning."

No, I'm drawing the meaning that was intended by the original author out of the passage. Suppose you think Aesop's tales were meant as only stories and any moral derived from them is 'adding meaning' to the text?

Dave said...

OK, you're doing a better job of explaining yourself now, Anon 2.

"You believe that Anonymous, Hindupushup and I all have equal validity in our interpretations of the Biblical text."

No. I don't think any of you have any validity in your interpretations.

"My point is that not everyone who wants to be on the team gets a pass as an authority."

Which includes you, Hindupushup and Anon 1.

"Examine the validity of our claims in light of what the text says"

I might, except none of you agree on what the text says.

"In my view Hindupushup misrepresents the text as does GCT and yourself. "

Misrepresents or misinterprets? There's a difference. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm trying to find out what you think words mean in the Bible. But "you" I mean you, Anon 1 and HIndupushup.

But I can do that, because none of you agree on the meaning of words, much less on interpretation of what the words mean.

Then there's the issue of your belief in the literalness of the Bible.

Answer this for me, please, Anon 1, and then I have a follow-up question:

According to the Bible, who wrote the book of Exodus?

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, all are referred to in other parts of the Bible and by Jesus himself, as the books of Moses.

I ask, because according to the Bible, Moses dies before entering Canaan. Yet he writes in Exodus that the children of Israel ate manna until they came to the boarders of Canaan.

So here's my second question:

How did Moses write this if he had already died in the wilderness?

You say you believe in the literalness of the Bible, at least where parables are ruled out. So how did Moses could only write about coming to Canaan if he was dead.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"Based upon Hitler's life (what I know of it anyway) it doesn't appear that he was a repentant sinner"

Hey! You just told us that sin's got nothing to do with righteousness. Lot could sin, but still be righteous. You seem to forget you told us that higher up the page:

"the Bible goes to great lengths to divorce the righteousness God declares of a believer from their actions."

So Hitler could sin away, could be less than perfect, but as long God declared he was righteous, his actions don't count.

You have contradicted yourself, Anon 2.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"If our righteousness was based upon our actions, then yes it would be wrong to say Lot was 'righteous'."

Substitute Hitler for Lot. Yet you not see how immoral this would be.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"But "you" I mean you, Anon 1 and HIndupushup."

Why? How is it that Anon1, Hindupushup and myself become lumped together as one? Is it because we all claim to be Christian?

I wrote: "My point is that not everyone who wants to be on the team gets a pass as an authority."

To which you replied: "Which includes you, Hindupushup and Anon 1."

Yes, we do not get a PASS as an authority. That does not equate to all of us being wrong. Just because you do not assume from the start that my statements represent Biblical truth does not mean I am incorrect in my statements.

A question for you: Apart from anything Hindupushup or Anon1 has said... do you believe my statements are plausable as properly interpreting the Biblical message of the verse in question? If not, let's discuss that. I have no desire to try to defend Hindupushup or Anon1 or their statements which I would also disagree with.

You wrote: "Hey! You just told us that sin's got nothing to do with righteousness. Lot could sin, but still be righteous. You seem to forget you told us that higher up the page:

"the Bible goes to great lengths to divorce the righteousness God declares of a believer from their actions.""

The actions of an individual are not the cause of their being declared righteous. God's grace is the reason. God's grace allows them to be justified (declared righteous) because of their faith. Faith goes beyond mere belief (the Bible notes that devils believe in God) and is displayed in the life of the believer.

Let's make it practical. Imagine we are standing on the top of a mountain which is about to be destroyed. The only way to safety is by means of a tightrope which has been stretched across a long gap and is attached to another mountain which is 'safe'. You cannot walk across the tightrope. In fact, all those who have tried have fallen in and died. I offer to give you a ride on my back over to the other side. You put your faith in me and are safely carried to the other side.

Did you save yourself? (no, you couldn't) Were you saved because you got on my back? (no, you were saved because I graciously offered to carry you to the other side (something you couldn't do for yourself) and carried through on my offer) Would you have been saved if you merely believed I could walk across the rope? (no, the type of belief required was a belief which caused you to commit... you had to get on my back)

Lot's actions, our actions, are us trying to walk across the rope ourselves. God declaring us righteous is us being declared "safe". Yes, we were still unable to cross the rope, but we were declared safe by someone who is able to cross the rope. No, Lot was not righteous in and of himself, he was righteous because he put on the righteousness of Christ in faith.

Tyler said...

Anon: Blah blah blah scriptures suggesting salvation is by faith alone which is contradicted by scriptures stating salvation is not by faith alone blah blah blah redefining the term "righteous" in a manner that is inconsistent with any definition of the term blah blah blah...

Truly, your disingenuousness knows no bounds.

Anon: God declaring us righteous is us being declared "safe".

In other words, according your abortion of a definition of the term righteous, one can do whatever one pleases, and for a mere utterance of a profession of faith is "safe" from damnation.

That's not morality; that's a free ticket to do whatever one pleases without fear of eternal retribution, you immoral, inhumane piece of shit.

Dave said...

"Why? How is it that Anon1, Hindupushup and myself become lumped together as one? Is it because we all claim to be Christian? "

Of course. And you've all argued about what words in the Bible are used, what they mean, how smart you have to be, whether God's laws are immutable or changeable, etc.

None of you are experts (as you admit of yourself), so given you're offering up extraordinary claims, like a woman turning to a pillar of salt, none of you are to be trusted.

To make extraordinary claims without any evidence is precisely WHY we can't trust you.

You all claim to be Xians but you can't agree amongst yourselves what it is to be a Christian.

Given how absurd your claims are - that the Bible is immutable, that forced marriage can be OK, etc. - it's not that one of you might be right, it's that there is zero reason to believe any of you are right.

That you can't see this could my jaw figuratively drop. But I know that's what being brainwashed can do to a person - you've been brainwashed into believing the most absurd things.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

"In other words, according your abortion of a definition of the term righteous, one can do whatever one pleases, and for a mere utterance of a profession of faith is "safe" from damnation.

That's not morality; that's a free ticket to do whatever one pleases without fear of eternal retribution, you immoral, inhumane piece of shit."


And to think you were the first to make claim of a "straw man" violation. Oh the irony.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: You wrote: "You are indisputably adding meaning to passages. That's not interpreting, that's adding meaning."

No, I'm drawing the meaning that was intended by the original author out of the passage.


In one breath you deny a deeper meaning by claiming it's merely a narrative describing actual events which doesn't indicate one way or another whether or not the actions described in the event were moral/immoral, and in the next you claim there's a deeper meaning to the narrative. Not only are you contradicting yourself, you're blatantly adding meaning to the passage. Blasphemer.

Anon: Suppose you think Aesop's tales were meant as only stories and any moral derived from them is 'adding meaning' to the text?

Suppose you stop tossing out flagrantly false analogies.

Now, you claimed I've made statements that I've refused to 'defend' (as if reality requires a defense) - a claim that you are now refusing to defend. Would you like to make good on your claim? Or are you just going to ask your imaginary friend to forgive you for being such a flaming fucking hypocrite...

Dave said...

"Yes, we do not get a PASS as an authority. That does not equate to all of us being wrong."

It doesn't mean any of your a right, either. And because what you believe is so far out there - that woman was turned to salt and your god rained down fire and brimstone, that you communicate telepathically with a Jewish zombie to expiate the sins of the first woman, that Moses wrote a book about religious history after he died, it means none of you are right, unless you have some way of proving your claims.

"Just because you do not assume from the start that my statements represent Biblical truth does not mean I am incorrect in my statements."

No - but it doesn't mean you're right, and when you make strange claims - that a talking snake tricked a woman into eating fruit from a magic tree - the logical assumption is that you are, in fact, incorrect.

There have been thousands of other religions with claims as bizarre as yours. Why don't you believe them? Why don't you think the Muslim religion is correct, that Mohammed rode to the heavens on a white horse? I know you don't believe it. But you think GCT and I and others should at least think YOU might be right about your weird belief system.

Do you think the Hindu gods are real, and that events Hindus think happened could be real (which would invalidate your own beliefs)? NO, you don't. But you think GCT and I and others here should believe that YOU are right.

Come now, Anon 2 - why can't you see that we think about YOUR religion the way YOU do about all OTHER religions? To you, they are all wrong, except yours. You're as much an atheist as any atheist, except that you believe on one of the thousands and thousands of religions that we have had on earth.

The difference between you and me is that you've been brainwashed into believing ridiculous stories.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "To make extraordinary claims without any evidence is precisely WHY we can't trust you."

I never claimed that.

My argument here has either been missed or ignored. Just because I say I'm a duck, doesn't mean I'm a duck. Just because I can quote Shakespear doesn't mean I understand Shakespear. Showing up on a random internet blog offering an argument for or against God offers me no validity based upon the act or the claim itself.

The argument is validated when its points are considered and found true (or at least plausible and unable to be proven otherwise). In the case of Hindupushup's argument, that God abolished in the NT what He had set up as moral in the OT, is able to be shown as a non-biblical understanding of the text based upon the text itself.

Zeus was not whatever we want him to be. The mythological texts about Zeus contained information about his character, some of which requires great interpretation to understand the complex character portrayed in the story. Whether or not it is merely a story is a tangeant to discussion of what the story reveals about Zeus. I can't show up at a university claiming to be an expert on ancient Greek religion and teach spurious things about the greek writing or about the mythological character named Zeus.

GCT is attempting to discredit God using the Bible. The problem is, no one on this site seems willing ot confront the God of the Bible as the Bible actually portrays Him. Accomplish that and you'll "de-brainwash" me in a second.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"I have no desire to try to defend Hindupushup or Anon1 or their statements which I would also disagree with."

I'm not asking you to. I'm suggesting your belief system is as off kilter as theirs.

"do you believe my statements are plausable as properly interpreting the Biblical message of the verse in question?"

Which verse? The one about forced marriage that started off this thread, oh so long ago?

And which statements? Certainly I think you're plausible in stating that the Bible calls for forced marriage. BUT IT'S WRONG.

Other statements of yours are implausible. It's implausible that a god turned a woman into salt. (It is plausible that a story about a woman turned into salt is a metaphor for another meaning, but you can't see that ).

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"God's grace is the reason. God's grace allows them to be justified (declared righteous) because of their faith."

Exactly! Which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Hitler was righteous, in your belief system. That's why rational people can't put their trust in you.

You believe something monstrous - that a human monster could have been selected by your imaginary god as "righteous" because the monster has the proper degree of faith, even as he's stuffing people into gas chambers.

Dave said...

"I offer to give you a ride on my back over to the other side. You put your faith in me and are safely carried to the other side."

And if I don't put my faith in you, you'll push me off the cliff.

No thanks, Anon 2, I'd rather jump.

But of course, there is no proof that ANYONE has fallen from the tightrope, except that you say so. There is NO evidence anyone has ever gone to hell, except that you say so.

I'll take my chances with the rope any day over your offer.

Dave said...

Tyler wrote:

"you immoral, inhumane piece of shit."

I would not go so far as to call you an inhumane piece of shit, even if I thought it, Anon 2, and so I can't say, "Way to go, Tyler!"

But you've certainly shown yourself to be immoral.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

""To make extraordinary claims without any evidence is precisely WHY we can't trust you."

OK, you don't think a god destroying a city with fire and brimstone is an extraordinary claim. You don't think a woman turning into a pillar of salt is an extraordinary claim.

Can you give me an example of an extraordinary claim?

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "It doesn't mean any of your a right, either. And because what you believe is so far out there - that woman was turned to salt and your god rained down fire and brimstone, that you communicate telepathically with a Jewish zombie to expiate the sins of the first woman, that Moses wrote a book about religious history after he died, it means none of you are right, unless you have some way of proving your claims."

Sorry, but you're moving the goalposts. This was a post discussing one passage. We went off on your tangeant about Lot and then Lot's wife. If you'd like to discuss each of the claims in the paragraph above, we should treat each claim one at a time. Especially considering that none of the other claims you're making above (even if proved false) would affect my original claim in this post. IE: Lot's wife not literally being turned into a pillar of salt has no bearing on whether or not Deuteronomy 22 is dealing with rape or fornication. (Think clearly and try to understand why you've felt the need to change the goalposts. I understand your doubt is something you have given thought to and it's very natural for you to feel inclined to retreat back to what you feel is a stronger position when you feel the sands giving way in the current discussion.)

You wrote: "Come now, Anon 2 - why can't you see that we think about YOUR religion the way YOU do about all OTHER religions? To you, they are all wrong, except yours. You're as much an atheist as any atheist, except that you believe on one of the thousands and thousands of religions that we have had on earth."

Inevitably, every 'point' raised by an atheist (when confronted and discredited) reverts back to a demand to defend Christianity in it's entirety. I won't engage you this way. We can examine the claims of any religion you like, including my own, but let us do so one claim at a time. I cannot (will not) attempt to explain to you in one or two paragraphs why I don't believe in any other religion other than my own. If you feel there is something I haven't considered from another religion, raise the point and we'll hash it out.

BTW, you paraphrased Dawkins beautifully. I mean that.

You wrote: "The difference between you and me is that you've been brainwashed into believing ridiculous stories."

The Bible has been validated by archealogy and has been shown to be historically accurate. The claims of the Bible regarding the earth and it's function show amazing scientific accuracy. The Bible correctly identifies the vileness in all of humanity and offers up practical advice for good living within a society (even many 'good' atheists have believed this). Having a solid track record of accuracy... I have no reason to doubt the Biblical text.

Dave said...

Anon 2 - you're a coward as well as immoral (if only by not thinking through your beliefs).

You are a coward because you have refused to answer my question:

How did Moses write a book about himself after he died?

I've answered lots of your questions. Now it's your turn.

If you believe Moses wrote Exodus, then how is it he described the Jewish people entering Canaan after he died?

I'm waiting.........

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "Anon 2 - you're a coward as well as immoral (if only by not thinking through your beliefs).

You are a coward because you have refused to answer my question:

How did Moses write a book about himself after he died?"

I didn't answer because I felt it was another tangent. But I suppose this thread is to become an expose of the entire Biblical account. Very well.

I don't believe the passage you mention was written by Moses. Just as verses which state things like, "and it is here even unto this day" or verses claiming Moses was the most humble man who lived were written by the original author of scripture. This only becomes problematic if the person (Joshua is my best guess in the verse you mention) was not inspired to write. Moses was the author, an inspired editor added the detail of Moses' death.

Even in our own society, editors do not get credit for authorship of a work...

Tyler said...

Anon: The problem is, no one on this site seems willing ot[sic] confront the God of the Bible as the Bible actually portrays Him.

What site are you reading?

lulz...

Oh yeah, you almost forgot: You claimed I've made statements that I've refused to 'defend' (as if reality requires a defense) - a claim that you are now refusing to defend. Would you like to make good on your claim?

Tyler said...

(Dave: The difference between you and me is that you've been brainwashed into believing ridiculous stories.)

Anon: The Bible has been validated by archealogy and has been shown to be historically accurate.

Way to drive the point home, dipshit.

lulz...

Anonymous (2) said...

@Tyler:

I wrote: "To me this seems to imply both are guilty."

To which you responded: "You are guilty of being raped! You are hereby sentenced to marry your rapist!"

Please defend how your assertion matched my statement. (It didn't so you can't. Strawman 1)

I wrote: "If you understand this verse to indicate both parties ate guilty, then the implication is that no rape has occurred."

To which you responded: "If I understood that verse to indicate both parties are guilty, I'd be a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit like yourself."

Stating an ancient law dealt with fornication makes me inhumane how? Note: You did not write "if I thought making fornicators marry, then I'd be..." but rather "if I understood that verse to indicate both parties are guilty...". Your statement makes no sense.

You wrote: "Nowhere is Lot condemned for offering his daughters up for rape. That is, at best, tacit approval of Lot's actions;"

You then re-stated this a few times such as when you wrote: "That's the entire point, you thick pratt. Like I said, "Nowhere is Lot condemned for offering his daughters up for rape." Not in the story, not in the rest of the bible - nowhere."

Re-statement of a point is not defense of the claim. Feel free to do so anytime you're ready to actually enter into the dialogue.

You wrote: "You are indisputably adding meaning to passages. That's not interpreting, that's adding meaning."

Again, another assertion you've made many times without offering specific concrete examples of how I've done this.

You wrote: "(as if reality requires a defense"

Apparantly it does, otherwise there would be no atheist. Again, ironic.

Thanks for the ego boosts, but until you're willing to engage as an adult (or at least defend the claims you've made up until this point) I see no further point in offering you any more chances at open dialogue.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"Inevitably, every 'point' raised by an atheist (when confronted and discredited) reverts back to a demand to defend Christianity in it's entirety."

Discredited only in your mind. I note that you tar all atheists with the same brush. I doubt you've confronted and discredited - except in your mind - enough atheists to make this claim.

Your claim is obviously untrue. It's difficult to even discuss a point with you, because, as with v.28, you've disagreed to which words are used, which bible to use, and what the interpretations are with at least two other people here who claim they are Christians.

It's hardly necessary to make you fail on the entirety of your beliefs. Just one will do. If you claim the Bible is the inerrant word of god and then admit to us that error is possible, then your religion is discredited.

You've admitted that Exodus in its entirety could not have been written by Moses, even though that's what the Bible clearly states. But we could go on and on and on with contradictions, all showing the words in the Bible are erroneous.

Even if every word in the Bible were true, and they were the words you think are in the Bible, then at least some of them make your god an immoral god.

I know, and you know, that forced marriage, even between a man and an underage, unbetrothed, virginal girl who had consensual sex, is wrong.

But you god doesn't know that, he makes it law.

The way of that for Hindupushup is to claim that the OT laws have been turned on their head by the NT.

The only way out of it for you, since you think the OT laws are still valid, is to claim that forced marriage is not immoral.

I don't expect you to understand what your position means, because your faith blinds you. The rest of us know that you hold to an immoral belief, whether or not your god exists.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"The claims of the Bible regarding the earth and it's function show amazing scientific accuracy."

Anon 2, you cherry pick from science. I know you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, even though scientific thought brought us to the theory (which is only a theory in a scientific sense, just as the Theory of Gravity only a theory in a scientific sense).

So, since you claim that science doesn't count here, you aren't allowed to then say the claims of the Bible show "amazing scientific accuracy" there.

You either get to claim science is valid, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Except, of course, in your own mind.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "Discredited only in your mind. I note that you tar all atheists with the same brush. I doubt you've confronted and discredited - except in your mind - enough atheists to make this claim."

Fair enough. Although I didn't mean that I had discredited it once and for all (for all time). I mean for the purpose of the discussion in this forum to the people engaged in the debate on this forum.

Ironically, however, you follow that first paragraph up by writing: "Your claim is obviously untrue. It's difficult to even discuss a point with you, because, as with v.28, you've disagreed to which words are used, which bible to use, and what the interpretations are with at least two other people here who claim they are Christians."

Who's painting with the big brush and asking me to fill in for all who claim to be Christian and their various beliefs? I think we're at an impass here. I don't know why Hindupushup has the misconceptions about the Bible that he does. I've presented my case for the Bible. Engage that. Stop hiding behind the rhetoric that not all 'Christians' agree. To turn it back on you in your own words... all of "us" don't have to be right... only one of us...

A shame because we had been getting somewhere. Perhaps you didn't like where...

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"The Bible has been validated by archealogy and has been shown to be historically accurate."

How so, Anon 2?

Over and over again, I've seen the same response. "The Bible has been validated historically."

I note that you didn't say validated by contemporaneous accounts that might show the events in the Bible - in particular, Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection - happened.

So can you give me an example of "historical" validation?" If it's not contemporaneous, then of course it's suspect. But I would like to at least one historical document to which you can point that would show Jesus was real.

As for archeological validation, I haven't seen anything yet that would indicate Jesus was real (or the Ark, or evidence the Jews wandered for 40 years in the desert). If you've got something, now's the time to let us in on it.

And what happened to my question about extraordinary events? Can you give me an example - not necessarily in the Bible - of what might be an extraordinary claim?

Since you don't think turning a woman into a pillar of salt, or raining down fire or brimstone, are extraordinary events, I'd like to see if you can give me an example of an extraordinary event.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

You wrote: "Anon 2, you cherry pick from science. I know you don't believe in the Theory of Evolution, even though scientific thought brought us to the theory (which is only a theory in a scientific sense, just as the Theory of Gravity only a theory in a scientific sense).

So, since you claim that science doesn't count here, you aren't allowed to then say the claims of the Bible show "amazing scientific accuracy" there.

You either get to claim science is valid, or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Except, of course, in your own mind."

The brush gets wider and wider. Why must I accept all the claims of science in order to accept any of the claims of science? That is nonsense. Can you show through scientific method that evolution is true? If you can, please do share and not to me but to the world so that we might pay you properly and note your fame accordingly.

Just as Christians do not get a pass for claiming to be Christian; "science" does not get a pass because it claims to be science. (The IPCC and Global warming anyone?)

Also it is ironic that you claim it is somehow my fault we are off topic of Deut. 22. Read back through the posts and you'll see that if anything, I tried to preserve us on track of the original conversation.

If we cannot get past the impass we are at... then there is no point in continuing.

Dave said...

Anon wrote:

"Who's painting with the big brush and asking me to fill in for all who claim to be Christian and their various beliefs?"

Big brush? There's only three of you, as far as I can tell.

" I don't know why Hindupushup has the misconceptions about the Bible that he does"

That's what he says about YOU! ;-)

Look, you don't even agree with the Bible, much less with Anon 1 and Hindupushup. Rather than accept what the Bible says - that Moses wrote some books - you've now asserted that Moses didn't write at least some of what's in one of the books.

If the Bible says everything in it is true, and it says something that can't be true (that Moses saw his people enter Canaan), then the book is discredited, or at the very least, everything becomes suspect.

OK, if you wish, I'll give you the last word in this discussion, unless you have a question for me.

Tyler said...

Anon: @Tyler: I wrote: "To me this seems to imply both are guilty."

Your assertion is that she is guilty. She was raped, as the passage quite clearly indicates; hence, your assertion can only be asserting that she was guilty of being raped.

Anon: I wrote: "If you understand this verse to indicate both parties ate guilty, then the implication is that no rape has occurred."

If you understand that verse to indicate no rape has occurred, you are a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit.

Anon: Re-statement of a point is not defense of the claim.

Lot was never condemned for offering his daughters up for rape. The claim needs no defense.

Anon: Again, another assertion you've made many times without offering specific concrete examples of how I've done this.

You've offered the specific, concrete examples of adding meaning to the passage. Repeating them would be redundant.

Anon: You wrote: "(as if reality requires a defense"

Apparantly[sic] it does, otherwise there would be no atheist.


The reality of your being a disingenuous, inhumane piece of shit needs no defense, any more than the reality that water is wet needs a defense.

My atheism needs no defense, any more than your atheism needs a defense.

Anon: Thanks for the ego boosts...

"The pride of thine heart hath deceived thee..."

Anon: ... but until you're willing to engage as an adult...

This from a person who believes in the adult equivalent of Santa Claus...

Anon: ... I see no further point in offering you any more chances at open dialogue.

Your "open dialogue" consists of unadulterated dishonesty and patently inhumane proclamations, and that you think I give a shit whether or not you respond to my pointing out what a dishonest, inhumane piece of shit you are merely compounds the evidence that you're as deluded as they come.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

"Look, you don't even agree with the Bible, much less with Anon 1 and Hindupushup. Rather than accept what the Bible says - that Moses wrote some books - you've now asserted that Moses didn't write at least some of what's in one of the books."

I don't believe the Bible asserts that Moses wrote every word. If you were to go see "Hamlet", you would say you went to see a play written by Shakespear. Despite your assertion, many of the works of Shakespear are incomplete. We lack any manuscript which contains the entire work in many instances. In these cases a scholarly editor adds in details. Does that editor receive credit for having co-authored the work? (no)

Was the Bible written by one man? (no) Again, so long as person who filled in the detail was inspired to do so, I see no problem here. (Not arguing for the JPD argument for the Torah either.) Doesn't Jesus "add to" the book of Genesis when he clarifies God's intent for marriage to the pharisees? The clarifycation just doesn't occur within the same book. The writing is no less inspired though. The issue is inspiration, not human authorship.

Or, can you quote a reference where someone claims Moses recorded every word of Exodus in the Bible?

No need to give me the last word. I'm not trying to cut you off, merely trying to keep track of the progress of the conversation. It seems we've stopped progressing, if that is the case then there isn't a point in continuing.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

"Can you show through scientific method that evolution is true?"

I'm so glad to learn that you think flu shots don't work. I assume you've refused yours - or insisted on the way cheaper version from last year - on the basis that the flu virus doesn't mutate.

You deny that viruses mutate, yes?

It's asking to much for me to walk you through the evidence; suffice it to say no scientific proof has been shown to discredit evolution. Everything we've found only validates evolution.

"share...so that we might pay you properly"

The credit has already gone to Darwin and Wallace.

" "science" does not get a pass because it claims to be science"

Of course not. That's the difference between a knowledge-based system, and a faith-based system.

- Science - knowledge - is changeable, depending on what we think the facts are.

- Faith - belief without or against evidence - doesn't allow for change.

That you don't understand this is part of why you don't think rationally, and why you can argue that forced marriages can be moral.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

" If you were to go see "Hamlet", you would say you went to see a play written by Shakespear [sic]."

I would, but it would be easy to learn that there many variations in the texts of Shakespeare's plays, and that it's impossible to know which one is exactly as originally conceived.

Do you admit there are variations in the Bible that are at variance from what was originally written? Are they all correct?

Let's get back to v.28. to see what you think it says. Specifically, does v28 discuss rape, as per the NIV?

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her "

Or is it the KJV, with its consensual sex, as per Hindupushup and Anon 1?

"If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found"

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

It seems we are only going deeper into other topics.

(I don't doubt there is scientific evidence which has led scientist and great thinkers to propose evolution. I don't feel it is concrete and even by your definition science is open to change and discovery. Until evolution becomes something much more concrete than that, I hardly think it worth invalidating my worldview based upon one aspect of scientific theory which even by your standard could one day be discredited.)

Thanks for the discussion. If we knew each other outside of the interwebs, I'm sure we'd have many good conversations in a coffee shop somewhere.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

Sorry, I responded before I saw your last post.

My argument was not that any editor is free to 'fill in the gaps' in any ancient manuscript where information is missing. My point was to counter your claim that Jesus' attribution of authorship of the Torah to Moses makes the Bible false as I hold an inspired editor added things after Moses died.

BTW: The Bible is the best manuscripted ancient writing in existance. (over 20,000 manuscripts not counting many more still being compiled from Qumran) The runner up is the Illyad with 600.

Anyway, again, thanks for the conversation.

Tyler said...

Anon: Until evolution becomes something much more concrete than that, I hardly think it worth invalidating my worldview based upon one aspect of scientific theory...

Not that evolution has goddamn thing to do with atheism, mind you, but evolution isn't the only concrete scientific fact that rips your bronze age superstition to pieces.

GCT said...

Anon 2,
"I do not believe forced marriage is immoral in the situation I believe the Bible is refrencing in Deuteronomy 22. It's talionic in it's approach to justice."

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

"The man and woman violated God's standard of marriage by experiencing something reserved for marriage outside of that context. Now they are forced to live out the committment which should have preceded the physical act of enjoyment they participated in."

Then you would be in favor of forced marriage today, right? If two 14 year olds have sex, they should be forced to marry. If a 30 year old man entices a 14 year old girl into sex, they should be forced to marry. If you wouldn't agree with those, then you're rejecting absolute morality and defeating your own argument.

"1. I see your point but disagree that talionic justice is immoral."

It may not always be immoral, but that's not the point. Demanding an immoral punishment is still immoral, regardless of the supposed crime.

"3. Granted. However, given the amount of evidence provided thus far in the discussion, I would say we are at least on equal footing."

I would tend to disagree here. The texts indicate one thing while a Xian apologist asserts another using rather dubious logic and arguments. If you could clear up some of the flaws in his arguments, then maybe.

"I apologize. What, then, is the basis for the morality which indicts the Bible's law as immoral?"

No apology needed. And, to indict the Bible we could use many sources, whether it be modern ethics, our evolutionary history with our culture, something that you and I sit down and agree upon, or even the Bible itself.

"I'll leave it by saying I believe consideration of the original language and cultural setting is always key to understanding any ancient text."

Agreed completely, but one would think that an omni-max god would have thought of that if he wanted to avoid confusion.

"The reference to Lot as righteous is (again) not a reference to Lot's actions (or character) at all."

I suggest you re-read the entire story. god is going to kill all of them for their wickedness and Abraham gets god to say that he won't if he can find anyone who isn't wicked. The angels go and decide who to save. They decide to save Lot after he offers up his daughters, not before. Sorry, but the story does not support your assertions.

GCT said...

"If our righteousness was based upon our actions, then yes it would be wrong to say Lot was 'righteous'. Again, not based upon us or our actions. This isn't what the Bible teaches about the nature of sin or salvation."

This is a perfect demonstration of the lack of morality of god.

Anonymous (2) said...

@GCT:

"I suggest you re-read the entire story. god is going to kill all of them for their wickedness and Abraham gets god to say that he won't if he can find anyone who isn't wicked. The angels go and decide who to save. They decide to save Lot after he offers up his daughters, not before. Sorry, but the story does not support your assertions."

Abraham's supplication was that the entire city be spared, not that God would lead the righteous ones out of the city to safety before God destroys the city. Lot was given grace and spared despite his wickedness.

Not that Lot is the only person in the city who offers any hospitality to the angels at all. Also, while Lot does a wicked thing in offering his daughters to be raped and beaten by the mob, his motive is again the protection of his guests. Given the situation (men pressing in on his house, fear of perhaps death for them all) I believe Lot made an attempt to do what he felt was best. This doesn't excuse his proposition or make it "righteous", however it does offer a sharp contrast between Lot (who is trying to do the right thing) and the rest of the Sodomites (who are bent of gratifying the base desires of their flesh).

Do Lot's actions in the story merit him being spared? No. Is there an indication that Lot is spared per Abraham's prayer? I don't believe so. I believe Lot is spared because of God's grace.

"16But he hesitated. So the men (N)seized his hand and the hand of his wife and the hands of his two daughters, for (O)the compassion of the LORD was upon him; and they brought him out, and put him outside the city."

GCT said...

Anon 2,
"GCT is attempting to discredit God using the Bible. The problem is, no one on this site seems willing ot confront the God of the Bible as the Bible actually portrays Him."

No, actually the issue is that none of us are able to confront the idea of god that you have in your head that you refuse to let go of, no matter what is written in the Bible or how much it contradicts itself or what you believe.

IOW, the Bible paints a much different picture than the one you are defending, but you refuse to see that. Thus, when it is pointed out to you what the Bible is really talking about, you dismiss what is said as inaccurate and claim that no one is willing to confront the god of the Bible.

GCT said...

"The Bible has been validated by archealogy and has been shown to be historically accurate. The claims of the Bible regarding the earth and it's function show amazing scientific accuracy. The Bible correctly identifies the vileness in all of humanity and offers up practical advice for good living within a society (even many 'good' atheists have believed this)."

Of the three claims made above I'm having severe trouble picking out the one that is the least wrong.

Dave said...

Anon 2 wrote:

- "The Bible is the best manuscripted ancient writing in existance [sic]"

Huh! Point for the Xians. Way to go, Anon 2.

- Best "manuscripted" series in existence: Harry Potter, with multiple volumes. The Bible is a series of just two books.

Point for Wiccans.

- Most prayers: Muslims pray five times a day! Pokey Christians pray maybe once a week, usually just twice a year (Xmas and Easter), and occasionally in fox holes.

Islam takes the point here.

Anon 2 also wrote: "The runner up is the Illyad [sic]"

The Iliad was a spoken "epic poem" before it was written. That's two formats for the Iliad. The BIble (OT and NT)? It was only written, it was never a poem.

- So, appearing in most formats in ancient times:

Greek mythology - way to go, Zeus!

- Religious by numbers - Christians 2,200,000,000; non-Christians: 4,000,000,000

Point (a couple billion of them, actually) go to the non-Christians!

- Fastest growing major religion by birth rate: Islam
Slowest: Need we say it's Christianity?

Point goes to Islam yet again.

When it comes to numbers, Xians are pathetically behind on almost every count, so obviously, based on Anon 2's reasoning, it's not the true religion.

Dave said...

Anon 2, are you playing the part of the wimp again?

You refuse to answer my question: which version Deuteronomy 22:28 is correct?

Does the passage talk about rape?

- NIV: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her"

Or consensual sex between a horny couple?

- KJV: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her"

GCT said...

Anon 2,
"Why must I accept all the claims of science in order to accept any of the claims of science? That is nonsense."

What is nonsense is claiming that the Bible is validated by science and then a priori throwing out any science that you don't think agrees with the Bible.

"Can you show through scientific method that evolution is true?"

It's already been done. (Note there are three different links chock full of evidence attesting to the fact of evolution.)

"..."science" does not get a pass because it claims to be science. (The IPCC and Global warming anyone?)"

Typical science denial...why is it that anti-evolutionists also tend to deny some other type of science? Please educate yourself.

"Or, can you quote a reference where someone claims Moses recorded every word of Exodus in the Bible?"

I would hope no one would make that claim as it is patently ridiculous to think that Moses wrote even one word in that book.

"Abraham's supplication was that the entire city be spared, not that God would lead the righteous ones out of the city to safety before God destroys the city. Lot was given grace and spared despite his wickedness."

Oh, so close...yes, Abraham asks that the whole city be spared, but the idea is that he doesn't wish to see innocents killed due to the sins of others (putting him in a better moral position than the "Wipe 'em all out" god that you worship). The reason god sends the angels down, however is to investigate because Abraham asked him if he could find as few as 10 good men. So, the angels go down there, have everything happen, then decide that Lot (and his family by virtue of simply being related) are good people and should be spared...even after he offers up his daughters for raping. You are simply wrong and blinded by your a priori belief that god must be good, therefore things like rape, which we rightly abhor in modern times, must also have been looked down upon by the writers of the Bible speaking for god.

"Also, while Lot does a wicked thing in offering his daughters to be raped and beaten by the mob, his motive is again the protection of his guests."

It may be wicked by our standards, but not by Biblical standards or god's standards.

"Given the situation (men pressing in on his house, fear of perhaps death for them all) I believe Lot made an attempt to do what he felt was best."

And, what does that tell you about the morality displayed when what is best is for one to offer one's daughters to a mob to be raped?

Dave said...

Anon 2, I had a divine revelation: you're just a troll.

I should have suspected as much when you threw in Darwin, and I should have known it when you tossed in Global Warming.

But no, I was seduced by those 20,000 manuscripted [sic] versions of the Bible, by tasty pillars of salt, and by your "pitards [sic]."

I feel so violated. You owe my parents 50 shekels; how soon can we marry? What's your email address/phone number, I need to send you my snail mail address so you can start sending me support checks.

Anonymous (2) said...

@Dave:

Regarding the first of your latest responses... I wasn't characterizing Chrisitianity as more or less valid because of the number of manuscripts. I was pointing to the fact that in light of the number of manuscripts, there is less room for scribal editorialism than in other ancient texts. IE: Saying the Bible as we read it today was written by Moses is far more accurate (despite more revisions and less manuscript evidence) than attributing Shakespears works to him or the Illyad to Homer. Nice post though... even if it was off point.

In regards to your second post... a consenting couple. I do not believe every variant translation of the Biblical text are inspired. I have never affirmed the validity of the NIV text.

In response to your last post... sorry you feel that way.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»