Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion...

I hope this will be a fun, and enlightening discusion for the both of us. Firts off, lest us review the rules layed out, and perhapse some additions or clarifactions. Sure, it's possible to mix in some "fun" with something that is extremely important."1. Context is very important."I am assuming we mean the context of, the whole Bible, as most fundamentalists belive. Fair enugh, though I might add that this is dubious, considering the questions regarding the relatedness of the books at all. Yet, this is about exploreing "the other sides" point of view So I accept this point. Okay."2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered."Agreed. Two-for-two."3. Consistency within all of Scripture (OT & NT) must be maintained."This is problamatic. Since we "must" maintain it, Im assuming when there is a descrepancy that takes a rather "far out" apologetic to remedy, we must accept the apologetic above the most obvious solution?Im not sure if this will be benificial to either of our case, I mean, Ocam's razor does come in handy. But ok. We will go out of our way, to make things "gel". Maybe I used the wrong word ("must"). The Bible is a unified text and, e.g., if something in Exodus conflicts with something in Acts then something is amiss and an answer "must" exist. It is in this sense that I meant "must"."4. The times, places and names must be examined."Im not sure what you mean by this one? I think you mean research into the locations, dates and such. is that the case? Kind'a... yes. BTW, I neglected to add "words" to 'times, places and names', in #4. Many alleged Bible discrepancies are resolved once it is realized, for example, that there are many names for the same individual or that different individuals have the same name. This may be confusing but is a common practice even today."5. God employs His definitions, not ours."This is also problamatic, less we have a source that explains God's definitions? I'm sure we should be able to infer HIS definition, from the Bible. Yet this is probably the most important thing to keep in mind. I'm sure this will come up later."6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed."I think we all know this. Just keep it in mind."7. Depth of study is often essential to get to the heart of an apparent discrepancy."Agreed, so outside sources, aside from the Bible are usable Im sure? Not necessarily outside sources - maybe just a deeper study of Scripture.If I may ask one question, why does it takes so much outside study to get a firm grasp on the Bible? Shoulden't anyone who reads it emidietly see the glory of God? You've assumed that outside study is required. Also, don't forget the part about attitude/heart condition. Many people read the Bible with a contemptuous attitude - almost challenging Him to show Himself. To such people, God doesn't even respond (and He says so in Scripture).and, a prayr. I said one. I really did. We'll see if it works? Many "pray" - it's what's in the heart that matters to God.Anyway... on to the isues:Since we have been up and down the creation myths, Noahs ark etc, lets try and tread some new ground in this one. And let us concentrate on only one descrepancy at a time (to avoid, answer me this, answer me that etc.), we will exaust one descrepancy.I will propose my descrepancy in a bit (gotta find a good one , but, you may propose one. Okay - one that I researched had to do with "Is God a good God?". The atheist that I spoke to you about previously was actually the one that selected it. He brought out the episode of the bears that killed the 42 'children' because the prophet Elisha cursed them in the name of God.

​

How can a "good God" do such a thing, right?

​

Joralex

Already, I can take issue with several of the rules you both have agreed to in this particular debate, but I'll shut up and watch so I can take notes, and enjoy the show.. In the mean time, I will say that one of you has an advantage.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-15-2003]

Ok I found one I like,Is God truely loving.I chose to follow in your line. Since you like this topic, and I myself find it an interesting one. While the children one you mentiond is a rather strange tale considering that they were killd for calling the prophet "baldy", this is not the one I choose.I choose the topic of Biblicaly, and Godly, sanctioned Rape. I belive this is an interesting topic, because the above rules require us to maintain consistency, thus, no matter how we look at it, we must maintain God as being omnibenevolent.So, in the following verses I will demonstrate rape in the Bible. And ask that Jorlax, explain, how we can remedie this contradiction to God's Omnibenevolance, by using the rules laid out above. Here God tells the isrealites, to kill the babies, women, chilldren, men, husbands, friends, wives, etc. But keep the virgions "for yoursleves". This, a command from an all-loving God.On a side-note, human sacrifice is also practiced in this same chapter. But that is besides the issue. Here we have an antire town decimated, and robed of it's virgins. These were taken as "wives", but when there were not enugh wives to go around, the isrealites kidnaped more.This was ok with the lord, as it was his festival they were prepering for.Finaly: Here we find that the only law about rape is that if you rape someone you pay a fine, then marry her. Why aren't most christian rape victims today marying their rapist?Clearly though, this law only applies to isrealies as this verse exlplains what you can do with enamy virgins: Here God endorses forced labor, pilaging, and keeping young virgins for yourselves.(NOTE: for more of these fun facts go to Page not found – Evil Bible .com)Now, rape is the most abominable crime most of us can imagine. How, can we rectify this obviously glaring discrepancy?Here we have women, forced into marrige against their will, raped, kidnaped, etc. In all these cases, these were God's people, following God's orders. Heck, even Moses himself! And this wasn't even the reason God rebuked Moses, God rebuked moses for pride in claiming he brought fourth watter from the rock. Yet, the whole Rape thing is aparantly kosher.So what gives Joralex? Is God Omnibenevolent, yet still capable of saying Rape is ok?

Be careful; they say it's all in the Dispensation[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 09-15-2003]

*bump* Just thought Id bump this so it wouldn't be forgoten.

Yaro, Joralex - Would you like this topic moved to the "Great Debate" forum, with the postings restricted to just you two? The title could be modified to reflect the one-on-one nature.Adminnemooseus

Ummmm Im up for it But, if Joralex wants to also. I dunno, if he's gonna respond or not.

No need to "bump", Yaro - just giving it the time it deserves.Ok I found one I like, 'Is God truely loving'? Yes, He is.

​

BTW, your post has an air of contempt about it. For example : "(NOTE: for more of these fun facts go to Page not found – Evil Bible .com)"
So, what's "fun" about these facts?I chose to follow in your line. Since you like this topic, and I myself find it an interesting one. While the children one you mentiond is a rather strange tale considering that they were killd for calling the prophet "baldy", this is not the one I choose. It's unfortunate that you didn't "like" my suggestion since I'd already researched it and it happens to be a pretty good example of how to read/interpret Scripture.I choose the topic of Biblicaly, and Godly, sanctioned Rape. "Godly sanctioned rape"? This I gotta see...I belive this is an interesting topic, because the above rules require us to maintain consistency, thus, no matter how we look at it, we must maintain God as being omnibenevolent. That's right but don't forget the part about HIS definition and not mine/yours. You can't have your cake and eat it too.So, in the following verses I will demonstrate rape in the Bible. And ask that Jorlax, explain, how we can remedie this contradiction to God's Omnibenevolance, by using the rules laid out above. I can hardly wait...NUMBERS 31: 7-18
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings — Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba — died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves KJV says "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.". I see no mention of "rape" anywhere here, Yaro.
The 'women children' that were kept may have become servants in the household or may later have willingly become a wife. You are seeing what you want to see, Yaro.Here God tells the isrealites, to kill the babies, women, chilldren, men, husbands, friends, wives, etc. But keep the virgions "for yoursleves". This, a command from an all-loving God. There is definitely a command to kill some of the 'little ones', and some of the women.

​

The resolution to this apparent discrepancy is simple : certain people seem to want to forget that there is a loving and merciful attribute to God but there is also a righteous attribute that demands justice. People also want to forget (I wonder why?) that God has clearly spelled out that the wages of sin is death.

​

The peoples that God ordered His people to slay (sometimes completely - men, women, children, even beasts) practiced evils that were unpardonable - burning children to their idolatrous gods, sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of ungodly vices. Because of their loathsome vileness, God employed the sword of the Israelites to remove them from the earth.

​

Why not simply kill these people Himself? Several reasons. First, by this mechanism the Israelites were invested with a solemn official duty as the instruments of divine justice. Second, this served as a means to impress upon the Israelites, and to all future generations, God's abhorence of sin. As one writer put it, "Behold how God hates iniquity."

​

God, omniscient as He is, knew the consequences of allowing these peoples to continue spreading across the earth and so had them removed with the instrument of His choosing (the Israelites).

​

Much more can be said on this topic but this will have to do.On a side-note, human sacrifice is also practiced in this same chapter. But that is besides the issue. By the Jews? Condoned by God? Show me!Judges 21:10-24
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.Here we have an antire town decimated, and robed of it's virgins. These were taken as "wives", but when there were not enugh wives to go around, the isrealites kidnaped more.This was ok with the lord, as it was his festival they were prepering for. You picked a very complex situation here, Yaro. I've just finished reading several sources and I find no way to answer this one in a concise way. In as few words as possible this situation was about mistakes that were made and the consequences of those mistakes. Later, those mistakes were further compounded. But in all this, these were the mistakes of men.

​

Show me where it says in these verses, "The LORD God says to go and do this or that".

​

As for the killing of the inhabitants of Ja-besh-gil-e-ad, I've already provided you with some reasons why this is a righteous act.Finaly:DEUT 22:28-29 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. You insist on using the word "rape". You also break here one of the rules that I had listed - not reading enough!

​

Rape is an act of violence where the victim was in no way consentual and may have, in fact, resisted the attack. In the verses you cite, 'rape' is not implied (unless you use one of the newer translations which apparently you do).

​

Nonetheless, I'll concede 'rape'. Then you simply didn't read far or well enough. Try reading Deuteronomy 22:23-27. The meaning here is clear : if the victim cries out (i.e., resists... it isn't consentual) then the man is put to death. No consequences? Hardly!Here we find that the only law about rape is that if you rape someone you pay a fine, then marry her. Not true - see above.Why aren't most christian rape victims today marying their rapist? Let me guess - because it wasn't consentual.Clearly though, this law only applies to isrealies as this verse exlplains what you can do with enamy virgins:DEUT 20:10-14 As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Asked and answered.Here God endorses forced labor, pilaging, and keeping young virgins for yourselves. Not at all... answered above.Now, rape is the most abominable crime most of us can imagine. How, can we rectify this obviously glaring discrepancy? Answered above. Here we have women, forced into marrige against their will, Says you.raped, Says you. And when it does occur, the consequences are clearly spelled out.kidnaped, etc. In all these cases, these were God's people, following God's orders. Heck, even Moses himself! I've refuted this above.And this wasn't even the reason God rebuked Moses, God rebuked moses for pride in claiming he brought fourth watter from the rock. Yet, the whole Rape thing is aparantly kosher. Nope, that's just Yaro's version of the Bible.So what gives Joralex? Is God Omnibenevolent, yet still capable of saying Rape is ok? Asked and answered.

​

Joralex

Sorry, just eeger Well, I figured you would rather start on fresh ground. Why beat long dead horses?Ok, on to the juicy stuff: Willingly become a wife? Servents in the household?Fine, say they weren't raped. Explain to me, how you could willingly become the wife of someone who raided your village, killd your parents, friends, mules, donkeys, took all your posessions, burnt your house to the ground, etc?Would you be satisfied to become the servent of your families killers? I don't see this, both in the KJV it expressly says kill all boys, babies and chilldren: But if you want "SOME", so be it.So it's ok to kill some babies? Why? What did they do, what makes them less inocent than the young virgins, that the virgins should be spared and not SOME of the babies?Why the virgins if not for sexual purposes Joralex? I mean, boys make better farmhands and such, were more highly prized in their culture, so why the little girls?Why save the little girls and not the babies? How does their evil practices size up to the Isrealites rampage? Do two wrongs make a right? And where in the Bible does it say they were burning babies to their gods?It says that the Midianites were worshipers of Baleem, and the Isrealites thought that their influence brought a plague amongst their people. That's why they killd them.Furthermore, A few verses on, the Isrealites sacrifice Midianite prisoners to God. So, how were the persons made the Lords tribute if not by sacrifice? Im sure, any answer you could come up with is not a pretty one, whether slaves to the temple or whathave you. Fact is, these people were treated like scum, famly gone, home gone, chilldren gone, daughters taken away by foreigners, and not to mention dehumanized beyond belife.How are the isrealites actions any better than the actions of these people? So the babies were sinful, But the young virgins werent? The beasts were sinfull? Perhapse not directly, but reading the beginning of the chapter shows that they were trying to make good on a oath they had sworn to God. Likewise, in the next quote, you justify it by your reasons above. The Isrealites are now Gods minions of divine justice, which means that what they did was God sanctiond.Thus, this act of killing, kidnaping, and forced "marige" was commited with Gods blessing. Again, my questions above still stand. Why is kidnaping a bunch of women, killing their families, etc. better than what the people of Gibesh-Giliad. Reading the chapter, I see nothing about the, suposed, vile practices of it's people. With all due respect, the above quote says "raping". ok, fine, so we will use the KJV which is a bit more ambigious. So now things are ok right? So then, let us examine the verse (using the KJV) you provided as the consequence for rape. Now, if he rapes her in a field, and she cries out, it's ok, and the guy is put to death. But if in a city, and she dosn't, which I suppose means adultary, then this is the result: And this is Just how? Again, I do not see how such an extreem action could be deemed rightious. But this is beside the points we are adressing. It says if they surender, then they can be forced labor for you. In the KJV. It says that the people in the city are to be tribute, and shall serve thee. Sounds like slavery to me.We know Slavery is bible sanctioned. Several other laws regard slaves only. Exodus 21 Clearly outlines how slaves are to be treated, bought, owned, etc.Ok, so we have gone thrugh all of this post of yours. Now on, to furthering the discusion of the Topic. Is God Omnibenevolent:To narow everything down, basicaly God did let the Isrealites do some pretty viscious things, killing babies, pillaging, looting, etc. Rape or otherwise. Fact is, they did some mean stuff, and this was Just, acording to you, because they had become God's tool of devine Justice.Justice against what? Wicked people, who worshiped other Gods, practiced Sodomy, and alegedly sacrified humans on altars. Though these things are not mentiond, and I fail to see how the killing of inocents would have anything to with this.Does not the bible also say that god will not punish chilldren for the sins of the father?So, does this contradict Omnibenevolence. Well, then we must ask, by examples above, how can god both be all loving. and all-wrathfull?How can he kill babies, force girls into marrige, make people into slaves, and still love everyone with all his heart.[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-16-2003]

*bump* [chirp] [chirp]

Ok well....Anyone else wanna answer? How can God allow all these things and still be all-loving?

A little ammunition for ya, Yaro; the word that is being translated as "lie" in DT. 28 is "shakab". Shakab does literally mean "to lie down", but it almost always is used in a sexual connotation. In connection with "taphas" ("take hold", "grab", etc) in reference to the virgin ("bathuwalah"), there would be no doubt in any Hebrew speaker's mind that this is a reference to rape.Additionally, Joralex, if you start trying to claim that it's a woman's fault that she got raped because she "didn't scream loud enough", I'm going to have to strongly resist the urge to hunt you down and smack you upside the head. Someone I was very close to was raped at age 14. You try telling a 14 year old with a knife to her throat to scream......------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Well, here we go again. The question isn't even this anymore. It's interpretation, does it say Rape!? Well, not exactly, but it very well could mean rape, as well as other things. So how do you take it?Also, for the verse Joralex provided as proof that justcie is served, I myself am apalled.So, if the girl dosn't screem, that means shes an adultaress and should be stoned to death?? How does this make sense?Not only that, the assertion that the kidnaped virgins, forced to be wives of the soldiers who murderd their families, was not rape, is mindbogling. Forced to mary someone, someone who murderd your family, is worse than rape, its dehuminising torture.I fail to see how this justifies God's actions.My question goes unanswerd, how is a God capable of such atrocities, yet still ALL-loving?

No need to "bump" or "chirp", Yaro - I was out for the weekend.Well, I figured you would rather start on fresh ground. Why beat long dead horses? If you think that the Elijah episode is a long-dead horse, then you are clearly missing the point. Later...Willingly become a wife? Servents in the household?Fine, say they weren't raped. Explain to me, how you could willingly become the wife of someone who raided your village, killd your parents, friends, mules, donkeys, took all your posessions, burnt your house to the ground, etc?Would you be satisfied to become the servent of your families killers? I do think that you've (1) missed the point and, (2) are getting off topic. The question was - were they raped?There is definitely a command to kill some of the 'little ones', and some of the women.I don't see this, both in the KJV it expressly says kill all boys, babies and chilldren:Num 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Read again - it's right there. Only males were killed and only women that had known men - this is NOT everyone.But if you want "SOME", so be it. It's not what I 'want' - it's what it SAYS.So it's ok to kill some babies? Why? What did they do, what makes them less inocent than the young virgins, that the virgins should be spared and not SOME of the babies? That's where you need to do some studying, Yaro. Ever heard of a 'patriarcal society'? By "cutting off" the males the entire line of that society was extinguished forever - spiritually this was necessary because of their spiritual vileness. Same with women that had known men of that society - the spiritual connection had to be broken. BTW - I fully realize that this means nothing (rational) to a materialistic Naturalist.Why the virgins if not for sexual purposes Joralex? I mean, boys make better farmhands and such, were more highly prized in their culture, so why the little girls? They were not yet spiritually tainted with the blood of that corrupt society.Why save the little girls and not the babies? Asked and answered.How does their evil practices size up to the Isrealites rampage? I can see that we're not going to get anywhere here.

​

The Israelites did NOT practice an "evil" since it was a command from God Himself.Do two wrongs make a right? A command from God is not a "wrong".So the babies were sinful, But the young virgins werent? Asked and answered.The beasts were sinfull? The 'beasts' represented material gain (spoils) and God, in this case, did not want the Israelites to have any material gain from these spoils (spiritual reasons).ok, fine, so we will use the KJV which is a bit more ambigious. The idea is to retain the original meaning, not to be more ambiguous.So now things are ok right? So then, let us examine the verse (using the KJV) you provided as the consequence for rape. Now, if he rapes her in a field, and she cries out, it's ok, and the guy is put to death. But if in a city, and she dosn't, which I suppose means adultary, then this is the result:Deu 22:23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.And this is Just how? Again, I do not see how such an extreem action could be deemed rightious. But this is beside the points we are adressing. It isn't beside the point. If what you are trying to do is learn how to read Scripture correctly then you need to start learning to see things in a 'spiritual' way and not with your own (flesh) understanding.
Ok, so we have gone thrugh all of this post of yours. Now on, to furthering the discusion of the Topic. Is God Omnibenevolent:To narow everything down, basicaly God did let the Isrealites do some pretty viscious things, killing babies, 'Males' - I've explained why.pillaging, looting, etc. What the wicked work very hard to amass, God freely gives to His chosen people. This is a spiritual principle.Rape or otherwise. Fact is, they did some mean stuff, and this was Just, acording to you, because they had become God's tool of devine Justice. There is no "evil" in a command from God. You are trying to judge an action of God using your own understanding. That will get you nowhere... fast!Justice against what? Wicked people, who worshiped other Gods, practiced Sodomy, and alegedly sacrified humans on altars. Though these things are not mentiond, and I fail to see how the killing of inocents would have anything to with this. Spiritual perspective needed here.Does not the bible also say that god will not punish chilldren for the sins of the father?So, does this contradict Omnibenevolence. Well, then we must ask, by examples above, how can god both be all loving. and all-wrathfull?How can he kill babies, force girls into marrige, make people into slaves, and still love everyone with all his heart. Consequences of sin.

​

Nowhere in the Bible does it say (as you do above) that God is "all-wrathful".

​

He does unleash His wrath upon those that deserve it but even then He is patient to allow for repentance (what else do you think is keeping this world going?).

​

Yaro, the bottom line is that you appear to be seeking some answers but you are going about it the wrong way. Specifically, you seem already decided that God ISN'T what the Bible says He is and you are on a 'holy mission' to prove it. Try being on a 'holy mission' to see it as the Bible says and everything will fall into place.

​

Let me put it this way : if you're right, then hundreds of thousands / millions of Bible scholars/Christians have been worshipping a 'false God' - a God that is the opposite of what He has said in His Word. Such a (contrary) God makes absolutely no sense in light of the ordered, rational universe that we inhabit. Therefore, either He doesn't exist or your (contrary) 'god' doesn't exist. Since God clearly exists (by the abundance of evidence this is supported) then it must be your (contrary) 'god' that doesn't exist.

​

Later, when I have more time, I'll present the Elijah argument ... you'll see some of what you've been missing.

​

Joralex

And do you think that the Creator of the universe, the Omniscient, all powerful God, doesn't know about the 14-year-old's situation?

​

How about using some IQ points here? A knife to the throat is akin to being in a field where no one may hear - see the connection?

​

You sound like one of those irrational pro-Feminists ... ughhh.
If you do hunt me down, I get to "slap you across the head" FIRST & TWICE! (heheh)

​

Joralex