Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Yaro's 'Logical fallacies' discussion...
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 2 of 44 (55333)
09-14-2003 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Joralex
09-13-2003 11:16 PM


Id like to adress the two reasons you proposed were behind the percived errors:
1. It is a manifestation of ignorance regarding how to read and interpret the Bible or, worse yet, simply not having read enough of the Bible at all.
I have read the bible in it's entirety twice in my life. Yet the greatest issue I find with it is the one you bring up here. Interpretation.
How are we to interpret this book, if not by what the words say?
So, if we see a logical contradiction, something that simply makes no sense. Like the 2 creation stories having things made on diffrent days for example, then how am I to interpret it?
Now, apologetics come in to play and you try to resolve the conflict. But to do this, requires you reinterpreting the passage in a different way, and in an arbitrary maner.
They say, well the first story is a summary, the second story is detail. So, logicaly you say, how come things are made on different days? Well, God made the idea that day, but not the object till the other day. and so on.
Now, some other christians, interpret the story as fully metaphorical. The days are billions of years, etc.
Others say it's a myth all together, never happend, but the Book is still valid and Christianity is real.
And none of these supposed interpretations can be said to be wrong. Because choosing to take something as a metaphore or literaly, is an arbitray choice exercised per taste by the apologist.
The big problem with interpretation in general, is: "Why didn't the auther just say so in the first place?"
See, the authors all thrughout the Bible are usualy saying what they mean, so why be cryptic in these instances? When there is a parable told, or a story related, the bible makes it clear that it is such. So why do these passages take so many mental acrobatics to gel in the mind?
The only logical way to aproach somthing like this is of course, to take it litteraly, and within historical context. Which obviously indicates that this is an old cultures creation myth, because it looks like one, reads like one etc. If it quacks like a duck...
2. It's a 'front'... a 'ruse'... a 'reasonably-appearing, socially-acceptable justification' for not submitting to the Word of God and to God Himself. After all, who'd be 'dumb' enough to submit to a Book that was "filled with all manner of errors", right?
Well, in my particular case anyway, it's not a front. Im simply not a beliver, and I find peoples belife in this particular myth interesting, because of exposure to it in my life.
Honestly, the Bible, and christianity just don't make sense to me. I really do see the Bible as an old book full of errors, and it is beyond me how people belive it so ardently.
When I read the Bible (twice) it allways struck me as a confusing mix of tall tales and philosphy, nothing intrinsicaly special spoke to me from it's pages. It read like other mythologies I have read.
Im not Justifying not submiting to a God, I simply don't see the God to submit to. See what I mean? He hasn't made himself real to me (neither physicaly or spirtualy), till then I see nothing to submit to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Joralex, posted 09-13-2003 11:16 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:41 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 6 of 44 (55387)
09-14-2003 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Joralex
09-14-2003 3:41 PM


Ok Jorlax, Im willing to run the gamut on this if you are. Let's start.
That's just it, Yaro, there are 'rules' and 'points' to keep in mind when reading the Bible so as to avoid seeing what isn't there as well as avoiding not seeing what is there.
First off, may I ask you, to establish the rules and points of critical examination. What are our starting Axioms and common notions for interpretation.
Please outline them, so that we may both look at the bible from your point of view. What is the criteria for Interpretation.
These people, IMHO, make various errors the two major ones being not taking the Bible in its entirety and having to introduce ad hoc hypotheses in order to retain consistency. But that's a totally different subject.
Let's leave science out of this one, since Im sure both of us aren't scientists, and it will likely cloud the issue. As you said, we will look at it with the above stated "points" and "rules" in mind.
Once you outline these rules, we can look at the more controversial passages, that merit much interpretation to see if the rules hold up.
If you read it like a 'cheap novel', it'll read like a 'cheap novel'. Attitude has a lot do do with it. Your heart's condition - seeking with humility and reverence or seeking to refute with contempt - has a lot to do with it. Many things have to do with the Bible supplying more than just "words".
I don't agree with this, I like the Bible. There is alot of neat stuff in it, it just dosn't strike me as holy. Perhapse it's because I aproached it with no preconception about it's divinity, I just read it as is. Just didn't seem to be 100% real to me as all.
But again, lets establish the criteria.
I will anxiously await your reply.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-14-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 3:41 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:51 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 11 of 44 (55470)
09-14-2003 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Joralex
09-14-2003 9:51 PM


Hello Joralex,
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.
"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.
"2. Relatedness to other parts of Scripture must be considered."
Agreed.
"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".
"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?
"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.
"6. God's purpose may not always be transparent or even revealed."
I think we all know this
"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? 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?
and, a prayr. I said one. I really did. We'll see if it works?
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.
Actually, I would prefer another user propose a discrepancy (not Noah, or genesis please), this way both I and Joralex will start with common ground. Any takers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Joralex, posted 09-14-2003 9:51 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Asgara, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 16 by Joralex, posted 09-15-2003 10:41 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 44 (55484)
09-15-2003 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by sidelined
09-14-2003 11:26 PM


sorry I havent written back yet I will later on. I been up late workin, so Im gonna sleep long and well tonight. Later folks, if anyone cares all that much
P.s. Please, keep the sugestions comin.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 09-14-2003 11:26 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 18 of 44 (55557)
09-15-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Prozacman
09-15-2003 12:41 PM


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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Prozacman, posted 09-15-2003 12:41 PM Prozacman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Prozacman, posted 09-15-2003 8:30 PM Yaro has replied
 Message 23 by Joralex, posted 09-16-2003 4:02 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 20 of 44 (55670)
09-16-2003 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Prozacman
09-15-2003 8:30 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Prozacman, posted 09-15-2003 8:30 PM Prozacman has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 22 of 44 (55779)
09-16-2003 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Adminnemooseus
09-16-2003 1:24 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-16-2003 1:24 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 24 of 44 (55834)
09-16-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Joralex
09-16-2003 4:02 PM


No need to "bump", Yaro - just giving it the time it deserves.
Sorry, just eeger
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?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.
Well, I figured you would rather start on fresh ground. Why beat long dead horses?
Ok, on to the juicy stuff:
[refrence to Numbers 31] 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Num 31:38 And the beeves [were] thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute [was] threescore and twelve.
Num 31:39 And the asses [were] thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute [was] threescore and one.
Num 31:40 And the persons [were] sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute [was] thirty and two persons.
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?
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.
So the babies were sinful, But the young virgins werent? The beasts were sinfull?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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!
With all due respect, the above quote says "raping".
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).
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:
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.
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.
Here God endorses forced labor, pilaging, and keeping young virgins for yourselves.
Not at all... answered above.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Joralex, posted 09-16-2003 4:02 PM Joralex has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Yaro, posted 09-18-2003 3:24 AM Yaro has replied
 Message 29 by Joralex, posted 09-21-2003 9:07 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 25 of 44 (56208)
09-18-2003 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Yaro
09-16-2003 5:47 PM


*bump* [chirp] [chirp]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Yaro, posted 09-16-2003 5:47 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Yaro, posted 09-18-2003 1:14 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 26 of 44 (56288)
09-18-2003 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Yaro
09-18-2003 3:24 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Yaro, posted 09-18-2003 3:24 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Rei, posted 09-18-2003 6:45 PM Yaro has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 28 of 44 (56366)
09-18-2003 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Rei
09-18-2003 6:45 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Rei, posted 09-18-2003 6:45 PM Rei has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 32 of 44 (56858)
09-21-2003 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Joralex
09-21-2003 9:07 PM


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 Naturalis
Ever hear of Genocide?! Why dosn't this mean anything to you? Ethnic cleansing is a vile crime, Im sure you wouldn't condone today. Was the situation in Kosovo ok? Isreal?
Give me a break! What kind of an argument is this?
I would apreciate it if you didn't label me, if I were Hindu, I would find this story detstable simply on the grounds of godly mandated pacifisim.
I am neither, I am totaly Agnostic if you must know. I simply don't belive that the Hebrew God is the one true God. He dosn't reaveal himself to me as such.
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.
I agree... this is the bottom line, and where most of my points of contention originate from.
I would say not that I am on a Holy mission to say that God Isn't what the bible says, Im actually pointing out what he IS, not what you THINK he is.
Let me put it to you this way, if the God in the bible is the God you say he is (all loving, just, mercifull). Then why isn't it evidenced in his actions?
If his actions do not demonstrate these qualities, why should I worship him?
It seems that the only reason to be on his side, would be only one: Fear of Hell. He does no good in these stories, hes a homocidal meglomaniac by any depiction, so why else would I wan't to worship him?
It would be tantamount to sucking up to an evil dictator just so he wont smite you. Why on earth would I wan't this guy as my God? He let people get raped.
And sir, Im sorry, but simply saying "it dosn't say rape" is not an argument. If you are forced to be someones 'wife', the conotations of that are non-consensual sex or otherwise.
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.
This is a non-argument. What evidence? Thousands of theologians and scholars belive in vishnu, and or Budah. Others don't belive in Gods at all. This is not a valid point.
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.
This is an interesting argument. Why is it, that when I read these stories, I get disgusted? Im not makeing my disgust up ya know, deep down in my heart, I know killing babies is wrong.
Spirtually, I would not be capable of dashing a baby against a rock. Sorry, that's not in my soul. Please forgive me if my heart isn't with the 'richiusness' in these particular bible passages.
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!
This is the crux of your whole argument. The sticking point of the debate. If God says it, it can't be wrong.
Well heck, God says kill a babie, rape a virgin... oops sorry, force her to mary you after killing her family... It's ok. He made the rules, so he can break them right?
So if he says he is all loving, then telling people to kill babies is a loving act. If he is all loving then raping people is a loving act.
He is sending them to be raped because he loves them. Just like he's sending the majority of the human race to hell, because he loves them.
Have you ever stoped to consider, that perhapse to a non-beliver this sounds ludacriss? And it also makes it impossible for one such as me to belive. Because it requires me to accept, what I know, in the depths of my heart isn't right!
If I can't read the bible, and see God's love, can't see the reason, how on earth am I gonna be 'saved'?
I mean, here is the document, and to any person who isn't already a beliver, it dson't make sense, and the only way to make it make sense is to belive it makes sense. This sounds delusional to me.
Im sorry to say this, but this argument will not go anywhere. It's ultimate conclusion is: If God says to rape someone, or murder a babie, it is a just and good thing, and God is doing it out of love. And this is true because it was presupposed.
And to me, this makes no sense.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Joralex, posted 09-21-2003 9:07 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 34 of 44 (56866)
09-22-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Rei
09-22-2003 12:22 AM


[sarcasm]
Rei, people are raped because of one of two reasons:
1) they deserve it.
2) because God loves them.
Now dosn't that make sense?
And the perfect infalible law of God says, that if she don't screem, then she wasn't raped. So there are only 2 options:
1) If she is betrothed, she should be stoned to death.
2) If she wasn't, shes gotta mary the rapist.
You should tell her she's living in sin, before God in his all loving wisdom, sends her sinfull rape-desrving ass back to hell were she came from.
[/sacrasm]
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-21-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Rei, posted 09-22-2003 12:22 AM Rei has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 36 of 44 (57085)
09-23-2003 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Joralex
09-22-2003 11:21 PM


I can sympathise with Rei's frustration.
What difference does it make if God knew? And how is it akin to being in a field?
If God knew, then he should have stoped it... You know, I can already tell what your gonna say about that statement. But it brings me to another question:
God dosn't interfere because of free will I suppose, even on something so vile as a rape. Yet, he commands an army of his followers to murder babies and chilldren, and... well rape.
So, an all powerfull, all loving God, is seen going out of his way time and time again, to kill people, yet he can't take a second out of his day to foil the rape of a 14 year old?
How is this all loving?
Is it Gods loving plan, that this girl should be lovingly raped?
If you take the bible litteraly, she didn't call out, she wan't betrothed. Thus she has to marry the man... or perhapse if she was betrothed, be stoned to death.
Dosn't that follow from biblical law?
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Joralex, posted 09-22-2003 11:21 PM Joralex has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 43 of 44 (57539)
09-24-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminBrian
09-23-2003 10:27 AM


Joralex? Are you still out there?
If you wan't to continue the discusion i am ready to. I did reply to your last, on topic, post.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminBrian, posted 09-23-2003 10:27 AM AdminBrian has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024