Okay, Ive been trying to figure out what I can add to the OMFGTHEYMADEABACTERIAFROMSCRATCH hysteria. I cant come up with much more than 'WARBLEGARBLE!!!!!!!', but luckily, many others in the blagosphere didnt totally lose their heads and have some great posts up (leave links to your favorites in the comments, I missed some, I know).
I just think its funny that a week ago I was bitching about how this group didnt explain how they synthesized their artificial genes (a few hundred nucleotides for each HIV-1 gene), cause it is really hard to go from "DNA sequence on a computer" to "DNA sequence in real life", and then Venters like "Yeah, we made a genome thats about a million base pairs. heh."
... OMFGWARBLEGARBLE!!!!
But this finding has raised up some old emotions in me:
Craig Venter: Figured out a faster, better, universally accepted/applied sequencing method, left the human genome project because of King Collins. Vilified by jealous loser scientists and 'science journalists' alike, cause hes 'mean' or 'arrogant' or something, which means as much in science as his favorite brand of pop. Travels round the world (and round your body) sequencing everything he can get his hands on. Sequenced the first complete human genome. Figured out how to make artificial creatures that run on man-made DNA.
Francis Collins: The 'Good Guy' of the human genome project. A 'rock star' in science. Scientific accomplishments include finding some disease genes, and patenting them (didnt cure/treat them, nor have they been cured/treated 20 years later). Got appointed as head of the human genome project after James Watson is forced out for opposing patents. Keeps getting appointed to political positions. Makes stupid websites and writes stupid books.
Makes the 'battle' between Venter/Collins at the turn of the century kinda funny, now. There is no comparing these two men, certainly not as scientists, but people will have them paired up in their brains for decades.
Man. Craig Venter and the teams working for him are innovative, awesome mother fuckers. Thats all I got to say.
- Log in to post comments
Man. Craig Venter and the teams working for him are innovative, awesome mother fuckers. Thats all I got to say.
That is all that needs to be said.
Wow! An amazing feat of intelligent design.
Say, ERV, why'd you leave that part out? You know, the part about how this demonstrates the power of design performed by intelligent agents in the process of creation of life. I wonder why that might be...
My response to Venter being an "asshole" and "mean" is the same as my response to someone claiming Mayr was an "asshole" and "rude" and "mean."
"You can be the most obnoxious and arrogant fuck you want to be when you're right!"
Venter FTW! The man is made of awesome.
Be as much of an asshole as you want if you can make a synthetic genome.
We live in a world where Paris Hilton is a household name. It follows that celebrity is a virtue in its own right which trumps actual accomplishments so completely that the latter might as well never have happened.
Isaac Newton was a mean asshole too. Nuff said.
Imagine if it was Venter rather than Collins who helmed NHGRI for the past decade.
Besides, Venter has a yacht and Collins has bupkus. That makes Venter the TRUE rock star!
I would have Venter's baby and, hot damn, he's just the guy to make that possible!
Seriously, though, notice how one's scientific output drops to zero once infected with creationism? Collins has become completely non-functional as a scientist while Venter is discovering new life, new civilizations and bolding going where no man has gone before!
Venter is my Hero. Sailing around the world sequencing genomes? making new life? my life is so depressing in comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORTyaK3d4eA
@2 Rhology
YAAFM
This is not in any way, shape or form evidence that some magical unicorn riding, rainbow shitting deity designed us.
I think Abbie left that part out because it's a load of foetid dingo's kidneys.
@2 Rhology
Congratulations! Thanks to the work of Venter's team, you finally have some intelligent agents to worship who actually exist! As a polytheist who believes in "the power of design performed by intelligent agents," how many deities do you now worship?
Lots of scorn, no answers for the obvious.
@14 leonids, I don't worship "intelligent agents", just FYI. Are you really that dense?
You did get an answer. This is not in any way, shape or form evidence that 6000 years ago, some jealous deity who liked to turn people into salt and condoned rape designed us. Or are you an old earth creationist? In that case, it is not evidence that 4.5 billion years ago, some cranky-ass god designed us. Since it is not evidence of what you want it to be, ERV has no reason to talk about it, except maybe to point out that there is evidence that ID is not even close to science. ID is politics, period. It should be treated as such.
Okay, I'm gonna take a moment to feed the IDTroll.
Your only question was:
My answer:
covered that question completely.
We all know you meant to use Venter's accomplishment to support ID creationism. It doesn't. You can't make that logical leap. It doesn't follow.
When you can show us some evidence of what Godthe Designer did, and when (or that it even ever existed), we'll consider your hypothesis.
Until then, please STFU.
Jesse @16 - I never said it was proof for any of those things. I love how you just jump to your own biases w/o listening. It's not very intellectually honest.
And if ID is not close to science, why is this a scientific discovery about the creation of sthg cool via intelligent design? Don't be stubborn to the point of stupidity.
(BTW, you have no evidence the Bible condones rape. You just made that up. And that's not intellectually honest either.)
Of course we can be open minded to the possibility that our universe and everything in it came about from some intelligent designer (or designers). Though I consider myself an atheist, I know I cannot 100% rule out the possibility that some greater intelligence is behind all of this.
However, even allowing for the possibility, I draw a different conclusion than our Christian friend.
From your blog:
"Our good friend ERV has comments on it, which are refined and coherent, true to form. Strangely, she leaves out the obvious, that the creation of this bacterial cell was due to ****INTELLIGENT DESIGN****. Gosh, I wonder why she might leave that out..."
You are clearly trying to make people think that because scientists did it in a lab, God did it. What I'm saying here is that you are a fucking hypocrite.
Furthermore, the Bible states that if I rape an unmarried Virgin, I have to pay her father 50 shackles of silver and then she will be my wife.
NIV, Deuteronomy 22:28:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Judges 21 has an army going in, killing all men and women - except for the virgin women. They were to be taken for wives, whether they wanted it or not. Yes, that does lead to rape.
Lets not forget that Lot offered his own daughters up for rape (Genesis 19):
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
P.S. Noah was a drunk.
ERV is discussing an instance where an intelligent agent designed and created something, and we have abundant evidence for this in the form of documentation. We also know the intelligent agent that performed te act, thus we can reject a naturalistic explanation for Venter's cell.
When Rho provides an identification for the designer or designers of life and cold hard evidence for their existence and their role in designing life, then I'm sure many a scientist will accep ID. Otherwise, Rho needs to stuff it with the false comparison.
Rhology - can you point to anything about this work that is connected to anything the ID people are put forward?
Just because they synthesized a living organism doesn't suggest this is anything like what happened to get life started on Earth. I doubt there's many (if any) that would have argued against the idea that intelligent agents were incapable of design. It's just that there's no evidence that some intelligence has been tinkering with lifeforms before this.
Rho,
This is why the Venter work has little to with ID and why there is no reason for ERV to make this connection.
No one is disputing that an all powerful god could create whatever an all powerful god wanted to create, including "desinged" sequences of DNA. However, this tells us nothing about whether or not a given sequence of DNA was, in fact, created by this god. To determine if a given sequence of DNA was created by a god, we need to know the history of that sequence, have a mechanism for its creation and have a testable hypothesis that will allow us to determine if our hypothesis of a god-designer is false.
What if a given sequence as not created by the god-designer? How can we tell?
I believe that humans can now create the polio virus from scratch. So, if I was crossing the heath, and I came across a polio virus, how can I tell if it was created by humans or by natural processes? Saying that humans can create polio virus tells me nothing about the origins of the virus that I've just found on the heath.
Come on guys, Rho is just here because he's worn out his erv hair doll and needs an Abbie fix.
Trolls can live forever if you throw saltines at them once a month. Let this one die.
Jesse @21,
You are clearly trying to make people think that because scientists did it in a lab, God did it.
Actually, you're showing yourself to be a fool. What I said is what I meant. Period.
Furthermore, the Bible states that if I rape an unmarried Virgin, I have to pay her father 50 shackles of silver and then she will be my wife.
So...the Mosaic Law PUNISHES YOU for doing it, and you think the Mosaic Law says rape is OK? Um, whatever.
Lets not forget that Lot offered his own daughters up for rape
Are you so dense as not to know that a historical account can RECORD sthg w/o condoning it? Reading comprehension?
Jon @22,
When Rho provides an identification for the designer or designers of life and cold hard evidence for their existence and their role in designing life, then I'm sure many a scientist will accep ID.
I can, but I'm not doing so here. My intent here is to remind you, like it or not, that this event was caused by ID. And in this case we know exactly who did it; their names are on the paper.
mcmillan @23,
Rhology - can you point to anything about this work that is connected to anything the ID people are put forward?
Yes - look at the names on the paper. Their work was intelligently designed (and performed, and studied, etc).
Just because they synthesized a living organism doesn't suggest this is anything like what happened to get life started on Earth
Fair enough, but now you're backpedaling from the excitement ripple among the Darwinosphere. That's not too intellectually honest of you.
Joe @24,
This is why the Venter work has little to with ID
Actually, this work was intelligently designed. You know, b/c Venter is an intelligent agent. You guys are such biased haters, it's amazing how far you'll go.
No one is disputing that an all powerful god could create
What's funnier is that THE DARWINISTS here are bringing that up. I'm not.
So, if I was crossing the heath, and I came across a polio virus, how can I tell if it was created by humans or by natural processes?
There might be some ways; I'd need more info. But I can tell you that there are two options:
1) unguided unintelligent cause
2) guided intelligent cause
and the only one we've OBSERVED, the only one with which we have experience, is #2. #1 is just guesswork, thus begging the very question at hand.
"Actually, this work was intelligently designed. You know, b/c Venter is an intelligent agent. You guys are such biased haters, it's amazing how far you'll go."
Sorry, I should have been clearer. By "ID", I meant "this is why the Venter work has little to with ID/creationistism as promoted by ID/creationists. Obviously, Venter's work is intelligently desingned, but by "ID", I was referring to the ID/creationism movement, and not just the fact that Venter is intelligent.
I think it unlikely that you want ERV to say "intelligently designed" just say "intelligently designed". If it's not your wish for this work to somehow be tied to your belief in God as the creator of life on Earth, then what's the point of your complaint?
"What's funnier is that THE DARWINISTS here are bringing (God) up. I'm not."
I'm confused. Do you have any other intelligent desingers in mind when we're talking about creating all of the DNA sequences that we see on earth? These sequences clearly pre-date Venter, so we can't attribute them to him or any other human. What does that leave?
"There might be some ways; I'd need more info."
So, the answer is no, you can't answer the question about the origin of the polio virus by looking what you found on the heath.
Rho,
No one here is doubting or claiming that Venter et al did not intelligently engineer life, and if pointing that out is your sole purpose, then mission accomplished. Though we all already knew that.
However, as I said before, unless you can both identify another designer of life and support your identification with objective evidence, then this paper says not a thing about the "theory" of intelligent design.
@25 Rho,
As I said, you are a fucking hypocrite.
I can, but I'm not doing so here.
"Oh, I could identify the designer, but I won't." You are full of shit and we all know it. Your idea of the designer is God. The very nature of ID is that it attracts people who are dishonest. If you advocate ID and you know what it is, you are being dishonest from the start. ID was designed that way. It is politics that was designed to get around the court system. In other words, it requires people to lie.
You talk intellectual about dishonesty. We know a human designed this cell. Nobody is denying that. It is obvious, which makes you Capitan Obvious. The reason for you to bring this up is to imply that it always requires an intelligence for this sort of thing to exist. If that is not the point, then you have absolutely no point for bringing up ID, unless you want to show that humans can design complex things. But we already knew that too and it is obvious. At least I'm straightforward enough to tell you what I think and not hide it in polite language and smarmy insinuation.
Oh, and I didn't even come close to giving all the examples of when rape is OK in the Bible. When it is punished is when the woman is A) married or B) in property "you broke it, you bought it" sort of way. God encouraged the rape of all the women in Jerusalem in Zechariah 14:
1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
When Lot offered his daughters up to save strangers, it was consistent with the Old Testament theme that women were chattel.
Rho, you missed one of Jesse's examples in your reply
if you are going to condescendingly respond "reading comprehension", you should probably read/address the whole post.
So...the Mosaic Law PUNISHES YOU for doing it, and you think the Mosaic Law says rape is OK? Um, whatever.
That's a punishment? Paying a token amount of money to the victim's father and marrying the victim whether she likes it or not is an appropriate punishment for rape? What the fuck is wrong with you? I hope you're not married, Rho, or you've got some explaining to do.
Did the Church use this sort of thing as an advertisement in its early days? "Follow Yahweh and rape all you want for only fifty shackles!"
The point I've made about ID here is distressingly simple. The only reason I can think of to strawman it so badly is b/c it makes you uncomfy. Give me a reason to think my actual argument is wrong; until then you've said nothing to hurt it.
@30 Joe,
Prove those women were raped. Don't imagine, assume, or naked-assert it.
@31 Der Bruno,
The original assertion was that the rapist wasn't punished. It was refuted, with ease. Now you move the goalposts and wonder about the propriety of the punishment. Please provide an objective moral standard by which we may judge punishments to be good/bad punishments for a given action. Make sure it's OBJECTIVE, not "empathy" or "intuition" or "that's what society thinks TODAY". Kthx.
@31 Der Bruno,
Also, I forgot - prove that the punishment is a "token amount". I'll be interested to see you back up your assertion with some relevant bkgrd knowledge of the time period. No response from you will be taken as an admission that you pulled the biased and groundless accusation out of your anal orifice.
Fair enough. I guess for the moment that means we must assume that all life on earth was created by Homo sapiens. After all, that's the only intelligent agent we've ever observed to do so.
What was your simple point about ID again? I lost track.
It's so funny to watch you defend treating women as chattel just to squirm out of the fact that the Bible condones rape, Rhology.
BTW,
"Prove those women were raped. Don't imagine, assume, or naked-assert it."
What do you think virgin women being taken against their will are being taken for? A night of Bingo?
It's gonna be funny to watch you thrash and sink faster into this pit of quicksand.
Jeremiah 13:22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.
So it is OK rape a woman of she has sinned. Rhology paying money as compensation for rape is simply converting an act of sexual violence into an act of commerce without any regard for the dignity of the woman who has suffered violence. Modern secular society regards rape as a punishable crime and not a civil matter. You shouldn't try wasting your time defending the Bible - it is a nest of very vile prescriptions.
Rho, you have not made any points about ID here. You came in and told us something that we already know because it is blazingly obvious. It is just as obvious as telling some guy walking down the street that he is alive. By doing so, you are advocating for ID. Tell me otherwise and I will not hesitate to label you a liar.
ID is nothing but a nest of lies tailored for political purposes.
I gather that Rho is just one of those guys who has a very hard time dealing with uncertainty and gray areas. Venter and his team demonstrated a potential new technique for engineering life-forms, so that must demonstrate that all life is intelligently designed. Now the Bible is his source of morality, so it can't contain a single morsel of immorality. The black and white nature of everything he argues is very telling.
Amusing that the ID-friendly Collins hasn't achieved anything like this, while Venter and his team have taken a good look at natural mechanisms and worked out how to make them do it our way. I'm going to argue that the "design hypothesis" is actively bad for scientists; looking at things and deciding that a wizard did them by magic doesn't lead to great mechanistic insights.
I think Rhology's claim, that being forced to marry your rapist constitutes their being punished for rape, puts him/her/it completely beyond the bounds of decent human discourse. Vile dehumanisation of women.
You know what I find funny about this? If we were talking about homosexuality, or abortion, or sex outside marriage, Rho would be the one insisting that moral standards were non-shifting and absolute, and we went objectively wrong the second we departed from the Biblical views on such things. But give a Christian a crime they secretly approve of and all of a sudden they start acting like the po-mo liberals of their worst nightmares: "Well, it could have been an appropriate punishment for the society back then! Women might have loved to marry their rapists back then! We can't judge another time and culture by our standards!" Remember this the next time they're talking about, say, Saudi Arabia.
Apparently, the idea that a fine - any fine, of any amount - is a pissweak punishment for raping someone is just my corrupt godless morality shining through; a true Christian knows that rape is no big deal and we shouldn't get so uptight about it. (I love Rho's argument that it would be all fine if the punishment was a large sum of money. Yeah, that would make everything OK.)
By any human standards, that's an argument-loser. By Rho's standards, yep, you've won the argument there, buddy. Well done. Can you stop thinking about my anus, though? I'd rather not know a rape enthusiast like you was obsessed with my arse. Get back to cornholing your friend Jesus, there's a good chap.
@36 & 37 & 40 Tyler,
It's so funny to watch you defend treating women as chattel
And you can quote me doing that...where again?
What do you think virgin women being taken against their will are being taken for? A night of Bingo?
Unlike you apparently, I don't project my own twisted ideas onto the text. I just let it speak for itself. Quote it proving your point or give it up.
By this time, you would've quoted it substantiating your perverted projection, so I conclude you can't do so. Thanks for sharing your unfounded opinion!
Venter and his team demonstrated a potential new technique for engineering life-forms, so that must demonstrate that all life is intelligently designed.
And there goes Tyler with yet another projection, of his own biases onto me. I didn't say that here, Tyler. Maybe you didn't read what I DID say. I'd commend the practice to you. You know, reading.
@38 Marishi,
So it is OK rape a woman of she has sinned.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for playing.
@39 Jesse,
Rho, you have not made any points about ID here. You came in and told us something that we already know because it is blazingly obvious
Actually I made one point, and one only. In comment #2, I said Wow! An amazing feat of intelligent design. If you need help finding it, hit Control + F on your keyboard from this page and type "Rhology", hit Next until you find it.
@42 der Bruno,
But give a Christian a crime they secretly approve of and all of a sudden they start acting like the po-mo liberals of their worst nightmares:
It would appear you don't know what you're talking about either. Where have I made excuses or acted like morality is relativistic? Again, direct quotes will suffice.
"Well, it could have been an appropriate punishment for the society back then!
For you who are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of an internal critique, I'm taking your position for granted and then showing how YOU are being inconsistent in that challenge. Sorry your brain missed it. I'm reminding you that you're being intolerant of a culture and time period that's not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively. As it is, you're just expressing your own biases, but why should anyone else agree with you?
And I note (surprise, surprise) that you're back but you haven't answered my challenge questions. Guess you can't. Ta ta.
Peace,
Rhology
(ERV - I forgot to enter my name and info on that last post - you don't have to let it through. If you do, I apologize in advance for the double post.)
No, I don't. I already read that. Maybe you should hit control-f and so that you can find and read the rest of your post:
So, by ID, you obviously meant "intelligent agents." That Craig Venter is an intelligent individual blazingly obvious. That Craig Venter and his crew did this is blazingly obvious. The only reason for you to bring this up is to advocate for ID. So, are you advocating for the entirety of ID, or are you treating it like you do the Bible and only acknowledge the parts that are convenient for you at the time? You know, doublethink.
And having done nothing but make the blindingly obvious point that intelligent people created a DNA sequence...Rho is gone.
There's a huge bit to be thankful for that Venter and Lander split credit (why don't you cite the first authors in both?).
Because of that, Celera Genomics didn't get to patent the sequence, keeping it open source for everyone, public and private entities alike.
I, for one, think Lander is way cooler. But I'm way biased.
Well, how about in the same fucking post as the above quote?
"Rape was totally good back then! Let's not judge horrendously backwards morality by any sort of rigorous standards! Why won't you show tolerance towards rapists, you big meanie?"
You just don't have a clue, do you?
As a last-ditch effort to hammer this incredibly obvious point into your fucking skull: imagine if a judge sentencing, say, a drug dealer responsible for the murders of several people said that he should go free, but he should pay fifty thousand pounds to the families of everyone he killed. Oh, and he should be given a supply of free drugs for life, too.
Would you honestly think that was a fair punishment? Would you really be sat there thinking "Well, fifty grand is a lot of money - looks like justice has been done"? If you heard of this happening in another country, would you be trolling forums claiming we shouldn't judge other cultures if their laws seem too lax by our standards?
Or is this instance completely different, because it's a crime that you're not personally hard for and isn't extensively justified in your favourite book of childrens' stories?
"And you can quote me doing that...where again?"
Oh, so you don't think that selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do. Glad you finally admit you disagree with the Bible, fuckhead.
"Unlike you apparently, I don't project my own twisted ideas onto the text."
Yeah, like I'm the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will. You deny the obvious fact that such women were victimized. You're probably one of those guys who thinks a woman who dresses slutty deserves to be raped. Fuck you, asshole. I hope you get hit by a fucking bus you stupid fuck.
"I didn't say that here, Tyler."
Then what the fuck is your point? You came in here saying "OMG WHAT AN AMAZING FEAT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!" What the fuck is that supposed to prove?
Oh wait, you're not here to actually argue for anything, you just want to annoy us all and fuel a long thread where you offer nothing but snideness. Fuck off and die, already.
One thing that amuses me about y'all commenters is how little it takes to reduce you to profanity-spewing outrage robots.
@46 & 47 Der Bruno,
Give us a standard by which we can judge behavior good or bad. Don't merely appeal to how YOU feel.
@48 Tyler,
Oh, so you don't think that selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do
Oh, so you can't quote me. Noted.
Yeah, like I'm the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will.
Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.
Evidence. Evidence.
You're probably one of those guys who thinks a woman who dresses slutty deserves to be raped. Fuck you, asshole. I hope you get hit by a fucking bus you stupid fuck.
Oooh, may I quote you on that? Haha, so predictable.
You came in here saying "OMG WHAT AN AMAZING FEAT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!!!" What the fuck is that supposed to prove?
That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID. That's it.
(And maybe a little tiny bit of me wanted to see you implode again like you're doing now. Mission accomplished, BTW.)
(What the fuck is that supposed to prove?)
"That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID."
The disingenous Rho strikes again. Or the honest but pointless Rho strikes again. I'm not sure which.
One thing that amuses me about y'all commenters is how little it takes to reduce you to profanity-spewing outrage robots.
I've developed an immunity to it.
Oh, profanity bothers you? You see, we can't be sure with you. Are you making another completely pointless observation, or are you hinting that you don't like it? You have proven yourself to self to be less than straight forward, so for now, I'm going to fucking assume that you don't fucking like it.
Given that you came here, made a dipshit non-point based on something that was fucking obvious, asked a moronic question where the answer is just as fucking obvious, started flinging around shit accusations of intellectual dishonesty when you're the asshole who is completely intellectually dishonest, applied your fucked up intellectual dishonesty to your own fuck-fest-filled (rape, consensual and otherwise) holy book, and you have a tendency to whine about fowl language being thrown around, I'm going to say that you're a sandy little cunt.
Your question has been answered. But I expect that you're going to go tell all of your little dick-sniffing friends that us stupid atheistic Darwinists couldn't answer it. Your little pet Morton's Daemon has overwhelmed any sign of intelligence that might have been present at your birth.
Now, go DIAF.
LOL, you are a dumb one, aren't you.
You do know that married people have sex, right? I'm asking because I'm not quite sure about you. You are talking about the forced marriage of over 400 girls when you count the ones from Shiloh and you are going to assume that none of them were raped. 400 of them just had their mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, etc... killed and were taken as chattel.
It's in the Bible, but it's not good enough for you.
Oh, and you completely ignored Zechariah 14.
I also love your moral relativism. I hope you don't go spouting crap about moral compasses to people.
"Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will."
So you honestly think that people taken away after a fucking war are asked for their consent? You are retarded.
"Oh, so you can't quote me. Noted."
The Bible says, you believe it, that settles it. Is that a fair statement?
"That it was achieved (just like every single other feat that laboratory scientists achieve) via ID. That's it."
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for that definition of ID. I'm sorry to rack your tiny brain but it's the only way to resolve questions like this.
"(And maybe a little tiny bit of me wanted to see you implode again like you're doing now. Mission accomplished, BTW.)"
Don't flatter yourself, Rho. Work put me in a shitty mood and you just happened to writing stupid comments when I got home.
BTW,
"Oooh, may I quote you on that?"
If that's what melts your butter, sure.
Rho is a hardcore faithhead, so he'll cling to any possible deniability to avoid having to admit that something in the Bible is immoral, which in turn is in order to avoid admitting that the Bible is fallible.
Rho wouldn't give other war criminals this kind of benefit of the doubt, he's not that stupid or inhuman. But because it's in the Bible, all norms of human reason go out the window. This is obvious, textbook denialism. His whole worldview is at stake.
It's not what I feel, you miserable little turd, it's what every morally conscious being whose head isn't wedged up their arse feels.
Look - women don't like being raped. This is undeniable. It removes their freedom of choice and involves physical violence, therefore it is wrong. They dislike the men who raped them. Again, obvious to everyone with a brain. Therefore, it is an act of barbarism to force them to marry their rapists. Don't give me shit about "respecting other cultures" - if another culture can't accept that rape is a crime, it doesn't deserve respect on this issue. I can't believe I'm having to fucking spell this out, it's like being asked what you thought of Hitler, or whether cancer is a good thing.
I fully expect you to be back along soon with another batch of witless moral relativism. "Buh buh buh some people who've been murdered enjoy being murdered! How can we say that genocide is bad? Durr, you made a swears therefore my defence of rape is correct. Don't be mean."
Message from Rhology to other creationists: please retire argument "Scientists can't make life in the lab, therefore God did it" and use argument "Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it".
I get that most of you want to make this all about me and how awful I am and how worthy of hate-filled, intolerant profanity-laced playground invective. But I don't really feel like messing with it, so keep going all you want.
@54 Jesse,
You do know that married people have sex, right
So no evidence of forced sex. Noted. You're just assuming it.
I find it a bit mean-spirited of you to assume that these women would be so grudging as to withhold sex from a husband who is supposed to be treating them with respect and providing for them. So you assume the worst of EVERYONE in the equation. Except yourself, of course, b/c you are a spotless angel.
you completely ignored Zechariah 14.
Yes, b/c it has nothing to do with the spin put on it by the commenter who brought it up. Read it.
I also love your moral relativism.
I'm glad. Too bad you have no idea what that means.
@55 Tyler,
So you honestly think that people taken away after a fucking war are asked for their consent?
No evidence. Again, noted. It's just an assumption.
"Oh, so you can't quote me. Noted."
The Bible says, you believe it, that settles it. Is that a fair statement?
Yes, the latter is a fair statement. Asserting that the Bible says that "selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do" is simply false. I've asked you numerous times to prove rape occurred, and you respond over and over again with mere assumption. That's called a fail.
I'm still waiting for that definition of ID.
Design from an intelligent agent. Not that hard.
@57 Stephen Wells,
please retire argument "Scientists can't make life in the lab, therefore God did it" and use argument "Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it".
I don't use the former, just FYI. I've been saying the latter for a while now. Strangely, I never get responses to it. Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we're commenting (can't name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.
Peace,
Rhology
you call women that would withhold sex from the men that slaughtered their friends and families a month before..."so grudging"?
Rho you're an excellent Christian.
A while ago erv(the blag) thought you were spam and automatically threw your comments in the trash. I think I know why now. It was a little smarter then the rest of us.
"Strangely, I never get responses to it."
More disingenous comments. You received several specific response to this argument.
Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we're commenting (can't name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.
Maybe she's just been too busy. Don't want to be too hasty in making assumptions now! :-)
No. We would rather you go so we can have useful conversation.
No hate. We just think your inane babbling is pompous, annoying, ignorant, stupid, and requires a twist in logic so severe that you could be the contortionist with Circus Olay.
Does not compute... I think if you had to give a definition of moral relativism, you'd have to look it up first.
Wow. You must have "Bible glasses" thicker than Professor Farnsworth's.
Something tells me it'd take you about 30 seconds to fall into Stockholm Syndrome in a similar situation. That's the ONLY way you could possibly find a way rationalize that what's being described here is all the women take to being wives without a fight and without being raped.
You're a subbie for BDSM acts, huh?
You shouldn't be using EITHER of the statements. Neither of those is follows to a logical conclusion. The ONLY conclusion that can be properly drawn from the recent scientific advancement is that life does NOT need to have a deity.
You can not imply ANYTHING about how life started based on this. Are you familiar with the robot phrase, "Does not compute?"
You have to understand. Rho is in denial.
With respect to the question of rape, unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can't prove that rape occurred.
unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can't prove that rape occurred.
In that case, I want a copy of Jesus' birth certificate with "God" written in the space for Father and the OB/GYN's exam report that Mary's hymen was intact before the birth happened.
Rhology (responding to Tyler DiPietro):
Yeah, like I'm the one who thought of taking virgin women against their will.
Prove. It. Was. Against. Their. Will.
Evidence. Evidence.
Sorry, brother Rho, the burden is on YOU, not Tyler.
Prove that the women consented.
Where is your evidence?
I'd also like to see sworn statements from the people he claimed to heal and from the people who claim to have witnessed his "miracles," documentation of his actual execution, doctor verification he was actually dead, and doctor verification that he was alive three days later.
Let me see if I've got this straight. An army commits general genocide against another group of people, sparing only the female virgins. According to the apologist the virgins, whose male and non-virgin family, friends, and acquaintances have all been slaughtered, are willing to be sexual partners with the murderers of the genocide victims.
To paraphrase Darth Vader: "The stupid is strong in this one."
Tis Himself,
Yes, that's Rho's argument. Unless you can produce a written statement from the victims to contradict this conclusion, his blind faith will remain intact.
This guy Rho is classic blame-the-victim. Rapists more often than not claim the sex was consensual. Like (true case of a friend of mine) "It was consensual. She should have known the gun I was holding to her head was only a .22!"
Yeah, prove that when you had sex with the guy after he killed your father, mother, and all of your brothers including the five-year-old, that you didn't really think it was just great.
I'm not religious, but I respect the bible as a very early historical document. By trying to make it something it isn't, true believers like Rho turn it into something obscene.
Rho, I'm just gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your just not capable of very deep thought. You can't explain why you think this instance of "design by an intelligent agent" has any implications for ID as we understand it, which is the idea that some aspects of biology are too "complex" to arise through natural evolution. Either it's that you aren't making an argument because you know it will immediately be shot down, or you simply can't. I'm going with the latter.
Oh, and on the matter of rape and the Bible: at this point I've just realized that it's pointless to argue with true believer.
Apparently Rho can read a Mosaic law which says "If a man rapes a virgin he has to pay her father some money and marry her", and then write this, from his post 59: 'Asserting that the Bible says that "selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do" is simply false.'
So, the Mosaic law is immoral and/or Rho can't read and/or he's just a fuckwit.
Also, Rho's definition of ID, "Design from an intelligent agent", means that ID has no role in life's origin and evolution on this planet, due to the absence of any intelligent agents to do it.
LOL, Read your own shit, you fucking dolt:
Prior to the comma is damn near the text book definition of moral relativism, and it came out of your ass. It's not me who has no idea what it means.
@60 Cain,
you call women that would withhold sex from the men that slaughtered their friends and families a month before..."so grudging"?
1) I again note the naked assumption that you know their state of mind. It's not in the text, you know. For all you know, these virgins hated their parents like many teenagers do and wanted to get away. There, I just extrapolated without any particular justification for it! Now I'm like you!
2) That's their husband. He saved her from the consequences of sin carried out on her sinful society.
@61 Joe,
You received several specific response to this argument.
Like where, other than people mocking me, and others saying "Yes, you're right. So what?"?
@64 & @69 David
With respect to the question of rape, unless you have written testimony from the ancient victims of rape, Rho will claim that you can't prove that rape occurred.
I'm just asking for evidence, not naked assertions based on people's opinions 1000s of yrs after the fact. One of my favorite things about this thread is all the atheists whining about the guy asking for evidence.
Unless you can produce a written statement from the victims to contradict this conclusion, his blind faith will remain intact.
Rivaled only by your blind faith that your naked assertions are true.
@66 Paul & @68 'Tis Himself
Where is your evidence?
I'm like most atheists I know. They claim they haven't seen enough evidence to believe in God. I didn't think you'd mind that I just parrot them here - I haven't seen any evidence. Show me the evidence.
@70 hoary
This guy Rho is classic blame-the-victim.
Please quote me doing so.
You can't. Fail.
true believers like Rho turn it into something obscene.
Please provide an argument that rape is objectively bad. I'd like to know your objective standard for morality.
If it's self-referential along the lines of empathy or intuition, please demonstrate why anyone else should regard your intuition or empathy as normative or prescriptive for anyone else.
@72 Stephen Wells,
'Asserting that the Bible says that "selling a rape victim to the rape perpetrator is a moral thing to do" is simply false.'
Ah, so to you, a judicial punishment is equivalent to "selling" the victim. Sorry, but DING DING! You're an idiot! Congratulations!
@73 Jesse,
LOL, Read your own shit, you fucking dolt:
I'm reminding you that you're being intolerant of a culture and time period that's not your own, and challenging you to provide a moral standard by which we can judge good/bad objectively.
Prior to the comma is damn near the text book definition of moral relativism
Sorry you're unfamiliar with the concept of the internal critique. *I* don't believe in moral relativism, which you'd know if you spent a modicum of time reading my own blog. But it's apparently a lot to ask for some anon, profane troll to actually do a bit of research.
Obviously, I am taking the fact that YOUR ATHEISTIC POSITIONS result in moral relativism, and then showing that you're inconsistent with your own position. It's an argument ad absurdum. Yes, I *KNOW* it's textbook moral relativism - I'm aping YOU.
One is left wondering on what basis atheists like you like to style yourselves the keepers of reason, when you can't even follow a simple argument like this one. You do make me giggle, though, so that's something at least.
Peace,
Rhology
You're reminding me that I'm being intolerant of a time period and culture that is not my own? Who says that I need to be reminded? I'm intolerant of other cultures all the time and I know damn well that I am. You step in with the obvious yet again. Nice dodge though.
What would you do if your daughter was raped and the guy who did it offered you 50 sheckels or the equivalent? Would you accept it, not report the rape to the authorities and make your daughter marry the guy? Or, just pretend that there are no authorities, would you make your daughter marry the guy? Seriously, would you do that, or would you maybe seek revenge? Trust me on this, since you believe that morality comes from the Bible and you believe that you aren't a moral relativist, there is only one answer that does not make you a hypocrite there.
"I'm reminding you that you're being intolerant of a culture and time period that's not your own".
Everyone needs to remember that Rho is a cultural relativist. Wonder what he thinks of the Spanish conquest of the Incas. I don't believe that we have any victim testimony there either, so...no atrocities were committed.
When Rho rejects the obvious approval of forced sex in the OT, he says that he's "parroting" those who want more evidence that Jesus is God. But he's not parrotting. He really, really believes what he's saying about rape and the OT.
If you reject the claim that Jesus is God, then Rho will tell you that you are an idiot, illogical, ignorant of theology and any number of other creative insults. When Rho rejects the claim that the Bible provides evidence that the OT God approved forced sex, what is Rho?
"Like where, other than people mocking me, and others saying "Yes, you're right. So what?"?"
Actually, you received more than this to your claim that "scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it". You received an explanation of why this claim is not valid.
Wow, this thread has really gone off on a tangent, from Craig Venter to rape or allegations thereof in the OT.
Back to the original topic, sure we can call Venter and his team "intelligent designers" if that floats your boat. What separates them from the theistic concept of an intelligent designer is that Venter's team had to work with materials that exist, mapping genomes of existing organisms and so forth.
The "Cdesign proponentsists" crowd's concept of a designer, at least as I understand it, is an entity that basically poofed things into existence that did not previously exist. Not just life, but the stars and the gases that comprise them, rocky planets, water, comets, gaseous planets, et cetera.
One of the analogies I have heard creationists use, though not, to my knowledge, our friendly neighborhood Christian commenter here, is that if a painting requires a painter, then the existence of our universe requires that there be a creator.
However, a painter can only paint what he or she knows or observes, such as a landscape, a portrait and so forth. Even abstract art has its basis in the artist trying to present some known entity or idea in a unique way.
Considering what we know of the universe, if it was created by some enormously powerful intelligent being, where did it get its ideas from? We exist in a universe filled with billions of galaxies, each filled with billions of stars, and most likely, many billions of more planets. From our own observable solar system, there are incredible details such as volcanoes on Jupiter's moon Io, rocky planets and moons with little or no atmosphere covered with craters showing evidence of tremendous impact events. There are rings around Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune that were not observed until our probes passed them by. A methane atmosphere on Saturn's moon Titan. Did the creator make these things based on things that existed in the creator's dwelling place, or are we supposed to believe that it made all this up out of its own thoughts? If it is the latter, that's the difference between ID and Venter putting synthetic genes into dead cells.
Please provide an argument that rape is objectively bad. I'd like to know your objective standard for morality.
If it's self-referential along the lines of empathy or intuition, please demonstrate why anyone else should regard your intuition or empathy as normative or prescriptive for anyone else.
You can apply what ever "objective" standard you want, there will always be individuals who will violate it.
Say I believe God exists, Jesus was His Son and that God considers rape a sin. But maybe I still don't care. I still want to rape, and if I go to hell when I die for being a rapist, so what? It didn't stop me from not committing rape.
The objective standard is the highest standard that one can conceivably attain. Nobody wants to be raped. Nobody wants anyone they care about to be raped. Non-rape is universally applicable, whereas rape is not, because not everyone can rape. The act of rape, to use your term, is an act of "personal preference", whereas a recognition that no one should be raped is an acknowledgment that people have rights that exists regardless of one's personal preferences. It can be either religiously or secularly based.
If one baseball pitcher strikes out batters with a fast ball, while the other strikes them out using a slider, they're both good pitchers. To arrogate to your religious beliefs the sole right to determine what is right or wrong is akin to saying that only pitchers who strike out batters with fast balls are good pitchers.
@77 Joe,
you received more than this to your claim that "scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it". You received an explanation of why this claim is not valid.
I made that claim? Where precisely? Please quote me, thanks.
...
Yeah, you can't quote me. You made that up.
It isn't a direct quote. I realize you're logically challenged, but "scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it" is exactly what you implied at #26 when you said:
That's exactly what you're saying: life was created intelligently in a lab, therefore life originally came into existance via an intelligent designer.
Three words: DOES NOT COMPUTE!
The stuff before the comma: "life was created intelligently in a lab" does not imply the stuff after the comma: "therefore life originally came into existance via an intelligent designer."
"Yeah, you can't quote me. You made that up."
Wells: "Please retire argument "Scientists can't make life in the lab, therefore God did it" and use argument "Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it".
Rho: I don't use the former, just FYI. I've been saying the latter for a while now. Strangely, I never get responses to it. Interestingly, even the blogger on whose space we're commenting (can't name her b/c it makes my comment go to the spam filter) had no response. Interesting. Very interesting.
Repeat. "I've been saying the latter for a while now". THE LATTER IS..."Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it".
Rhology;
These comments weren't directed at me, but what the hell.
Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for? Can you quote the Bible to the effect that all the forcibly-married female captives were treated with respect and were provided for by their captor-husbands?
Well, yeah.
Compare and contrast it to your un-stated (though implicit) assumption that every single woman taken as a war prisoner gave their consent to be married to their captors.
Well, the Bible does say that a rapist should buy his victim from her father. The codes of conduct prescribed in the Bible are (or were) moral, according to you, are they not?
@Rho 80, I noticed you failed to answer my question:
Oh, and by the way, if you don't like the conclusion I drew from Zechariah 14, you still have to account for who worked up a number 6 on Jerusalem. Because there was still some raping going on. According to the Bible. Which you say is truth. God condoned raping.
@82 Joe,
You know what? You're right, you did quote me that time. Unfortunately, I'd misspoken that time. So, kudos for quoting me correctly. Demerits to everyone else for allegedly quoting me, yet never showing up with the goods when challenged.
When I said, in response to: "Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore God did it"; this: "I've been saying the latter for a while now" was this, actually: Scientists can make life in the lab, therefore this furnishes more evidence for ID, whereas the opposite is often claimed by Darwinians.
My apologies for the mistake.
@83 Fortuna,
Can you quote the Bible to the effect that all the forcibly-married female captives were treated with respect and were provided for by their captor-husbands?
Yes - see the various portions of the Mosaic Law where women receive legal protection.
Compare and contrast it to your un-stated (though implicit) assumption that every single woman taken as a war prisoner gave their consent to be married to their captors.
The point is that we can't know what they were thinking, and yet the entire argument from the other side is that they CAN AND DO know what those women were thinking. I'm simply asking for evidence. What's so funny is that they all get mad when I demand evidence, and yet they're so quick to demand evidence for things related to, say, evolution, and always (usually dishonestly) say "I follow the evidence". Not this time, it would appear.
the Bible does say that a rapist should buy his victim from her father.
I'd appreciate a direct biblical citation so we can take a direct look at it.
@84 Jesse,
@Rho 80, I noticed you failed to answer my question:
Yes, b/c it was worthless. What relevance to the question at hand has asking me what *I* would do? You're tempting me to become like you, exercising anachronistic judgments. Sorry, that's your job apparently.
if you don't like the conclusion I drew from Zechariah 14, you still have to account for who worked up a number 6 on Jerusalem.
God condoning rape and God decreeing that rape occur and yet judging those who commit rape are 2 very different things. This is the part where you realise your deep and wide ignorance of biblical theology.
It is not a worthless question. Your refusal to answer tells me that you would not follow Biblical law in such a case and you know that makes you a moral relativist.
Rhology;
That's a "no", then. You're simply assuming that the Israelites conducted themselves according to the Law wrt. their female captives. Unless, that is, you know of a passage in which the Bible explicitly spells out "all the captives were treated with the utmost respect and were fully provided for", or the equivalent?
Indeed. One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
You're welcome to try to frame it that way, if you like. Personally, I don't think anyone's violated their epistemic duties in supposing that war prisoners might not be too enthused about being married to the members of an invading army that just got done killing damn near everyone.
Remember, we're comparing assumptions about the mindset of people whose thoughts are not directly attested to. The assumption you are advancing is bizarre, given what we know about how humans think.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Oh? If God did not wish for rape to occur, and thus condone it, then why decree it?
You're simply assuming that the Israelites conducted themselves according to the Law wrt. their female captives.
???? The question has NEVER been "did rape sometimes occur?" It's been "Did God say it was OK in the Bible?"
Strange that you'd think that the notion of the existence of sin would disprove the Bible, when it's kind of all about sin and the remedy.
One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
To show that YOU DON'T KNOW.
I don't think anyone's violated their epistemic duties in supposing that war prisoners might not be too enthused
And we're all happy you feel that way. I guess I'm just interested in evidence.
Deut 22:28-29 - 28âIf a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girlâs father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.
I already identified that not as a sale but as a punishment, a fine.
If God did not wish for rape to occur, and thus condone it, then why decree it?
B/c God seeks His own glory above all else and determined that the world would go this way. There are lots of reasons, but I'm not about to go into all that here. For your edification.
Some may find the following of interest.
http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/05/does-god-of-bible-condone-rape-…
Pay particular attention to the translation of the Hebrew word "anah". By the way, Rho's term for captured virgins forced to have sex with their captives is "war bride".
Rhology;
No, this was my question:
Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for?
One would almost think you were trying to move the goalposts. Nah, that can't be it.
Well ALRIGHT THEN, Captain Capslock. I'm glad you admit to forwarding a specious argument just to take the piss, as it were.
Can you guess, from the part of my comment you declined to quote, what evidence I adduced in support of my feeling?
I know you did. That does nothing to change the plain meaning of the text; you break, you buy it. The "it" in this case being a person.
This isn't rocket surgery. Imagine you are female, living in Biblical times. You are raped; you rapist pays your father, and you are now his wife. Pretty sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay for the privilege of forcing matrimony upon his victim, which in this hypothetical case, is you.
Well, that's just skippy. That doesn't quite address the contradiction implicit in a perfect being condemning something it willed in the first place.
As is your prerogative. Rather than make me claw my eyes out scouring that link for something relevant to my question, though, maybe you could point me to something more specific?
@92 Fortuna,
No, this was my question:
Is that an assumption on your part there, that they were treated with respect and were provided for?
One would almost think you were trying to move the goalposts.
Oh, OK. Well, then, my answer is that I don't assume it either way. It's an irrelevant question in any case. I don't see why I should scratch my head and wonder whether human beings sin or abuse righteous commands and situations - that's clear and evident. What IS important is what God said to do.
I'm glad you admit to forwarding a specious argument just to take the piss, as it were.
Please provide an argument to the effect that it is specious to point out that someone making a positive assertion doesn't actually know that the assertion is true. Thanks!
That does nothing to change the plain meaning of the text; you break, you buy it. The "it" in this case being a person.
Or you rape her, you are punished. Please provide an actual argument that this is a "sale" and not a judicial fine, given that this part of the Mosaic Law describes punishable actions and the prescribed punishments. You know, context and all that.
Imagine you are female, living in Biblical times.
I am neither female nor living in biblical times. I'm not going to play these fantasy games.
Pretty sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay for the privilege of forcing matrimony upon his victim, which in this hypothetical case, is you.
1) You seem to be implying this is a bad thing. Please provide an objective moral standard by which you can know what is good and bad.
If you're making no such implication, I simply agree with your non-implication: So what?
2) Not a particularly sweet deal if he only wanted quick sexual release.
3) I suppose you'd prefer she be left alone, and as it'd be known she wasn't a virgin, she'd have a very hard time finding a husband. But you don't care about that, now do you?
4) The Mosaic Law gives her rights as the wife, and her husband can't do her wrong w/o being further punished.
5) I'd love to see your background knowledge to the effect that 50 shekels of silver is a "sweet deal". Like handing over a fiver.
That doesn't quite address the contradiction implicit in a perfect being condemning something it willed in the first place.
Please prove that God's decreed plan is not, in fact, perfect. Make sure to specify what standard you're using to judge between "perfect" and "imperfect".
maybe you could point me to something more specific?
I did. Are you familiar with "hyperlinks"?
Rhology;
Good for you. All I was driving at was your apparently ludicrous assumption that every single war captive consented to be married. This, coming in the context of remarks in which you castigated people for making far less bizarre assumptions. Go back and read what I actually wrote, if this is still unclear to you.
Umm, no? That isn't what I was saying. See above.
Rapist forks over money, gets permanent access to victim.
I can see why you wouldn't want to, since you'd be apt to be raped, have your family killed, etc.
Does Christianity today take a dim view of rape? My impression is that it does, so let's go with that.
Granted. Not that this makes it any less the case that there would still be a standing invitation for rapists to pay in order to lock down their victims permanently.
I'd prefer that women not be treated as chattel in the first place, nor valued primarily for their ability to provide a virgin hymen for their husband-masters to destroy.
Does that include the right not to be raped further?
I said it was a sweet deal for a rapist willing to pay, not that it was trivial. But for what it's worth, Deuteronomy cites 100 shekels as being an appropriate fine for a transgression committed by a married man against his wife, if I recall correctly. I'm guessing the intent was not to bankrupt the household and thus punish the wife further, but I could be wrong.
I said the being is allegedly perfect, not the plan. There's those goalposts again.
Quite. There's no way I'm reading the multiple linked articles in sequence, though. I'm not honestly that curious about your favorite myth. I was hoping you could just provide a straightforward explanation, but I'm willing to accept it's just too complicated to sum up quickly.
All I was driving at was your apparently ludicrous assumption that every single war captive consented to be married
Which assumption I never made. I merely pointed out that nobody here gets to assume anything; I'm demanding evidence for the positive assertions others have made. And apparently they don't have any such evidence. Instead they apparently prefer to play pretend. So...why aren't you getting after *them*?
Rapist forks over money, gets permanent access to victim.
Under the rule of law of marriage.
I can see why you wouldn't want to, since you'd be apt to be raped, have your family killed, etc.
Ah yes, b/c EVERYONE in ancient times was subject to nearly constant violence.
Methinks you read too much Dan Brown.
Does Christianity today take a dim view of rape? My impression is that it does, so let's go with that.
Are you a Christian?
If not, let's go with my original question, to *you*.
I'd prefer that women not be treated as chattel in the first plac
Please prove that women are treated as "chattel".
Please also prove that treating women as "chattel" is objectively a bad thing.
Does that include the right not to be raped further?
1) Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex.
2) It's not like the woman is forced to marry the man. The Law is referring to the man's obligation.
3) You haven't proved that rape is objectively a bad thing. Please do so. Now.
Deuteronomy cites 100 shekels as being an appropriate fine for a transgression committed by a married man against his wife, if I recall correctly.
So you concede the "sweet deal" point, then, due to your ignorant prejudicial assertion. Now we're making progress.
I said the being is allegedly perfect, not the plan. There's those goalposts again.
The PLAN is perfect too. Goalposts? Where have I *ever* said anything different? Maybe you need to learn what "moving the goalposts" means.
There's no way I'm reading the multiple linked articles in sequence, though.
Ah well, you can lead the atheist to information, but you can't make him learn.
Peace,
Rhology
It occurs to me that this should be "a dim view of forced matrimony and probable continued rape", rather than just rape as such.
"Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex."
Lulz.
Rhology;
You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
Great. I rejoice at the thought you may one day live up to your own standards.
Be it resolved that forced marriage is moral, according to you. Or was at one time, but isn't anymore, perhaps.
Didn't say EVERYONE was subject to nearly constant violence. Methinks that Dan Brown remark sounded like quite a zinger in your head.
But hey, I'm feeling magnanimous, so I'll concede "apt" is overstating the case. I'll rephrase to "I can see why you wouldn't want to imagine yourself in the circumstances of an ancient female war-captive".
Your question was to provide a standard, and I have. Is forced matrimony to ones' rapist moral according to your worldview? Was it moral at one time, but no longer? I'm in the mood for an internal critique.
According to the Bible, fathers may sell their daughters into slavery. Husbands may also stone their wives to death if they can't provide proof of their virginity upon being married.
I'm more interested to know how this plays out within your own worldview. The way I see it, you have four possible endgames if you acknowledge the Bible endorsed treating women as chattel:
1.) It was good then, but is bad now.
2.) It was bad then, and now.
3.) It was neither objectively good or bad.
4.) It was good then, and would be good now.
Don't assume it, prove it. With evidence. These are your standards, at least in this thread, let us recall.
So the marriage portion of the prescribed punishment is optional? Kindly prove it.
No need, this being an internal critique and all. The real question is since you think rape is bad, how do you square that with the instances in which the Bible condones it?
Incidentally, I already know you've read through Dave's link in the thread above, so let's please not pretend you're unaware of the Bible's discussion of rape as if it's something that's just expected to happen when you take an attractive woman captive.
Nope. For rapists who are willing to pay the fine to lock down a victim, it's a sweet deal, just as I said. The 100 shekel fine is also, in point of fact, right there in Deuteronomy.
Sigh. I said that a perfect God condemning the results of his own plan makes no sense. You're welcome to claim that both God and his PLAN are perfect, but without actually showing that there is no contradiction inherent in a perfect God condemning something he brought about in the first place, it doesn't address what I said. You're simply shifting the discussion away to your canned apologetics, and that is the goalpost shifting, to say nothing of shifting the burden of proof.
Can you blame me? I mean, the banana disproved evolution, so I'm all traumatized, now.
You're still cordially invited to explain it in your own words, if you wish.
I find it a bit mean-spirited of you to assume that these women would be so grudging as to withhold sex from a husband who is supposed to be treating them with respect and providing for them
That's textbook Nice Guyism. "Hey, I provide food and shelter for you, so you owe me sex."
For some women, it's just not enough to lie back and "think of England."
Upon review, it would appear that the Bible does indeed consider rape a crime. However, it's not a crime committed by a man against a woman, but rather a crime committed by a man against another man. It's transgression of the man's property rights.
Please prove that unicorn shit isn't delicious.
Like the opening credits of Battlestar Galactica, which tells us that the Cylons "HAVE A PLAN." By the end of the show, we realize that there really wasn't a plan.
Fortuna,
You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
Where?
I rejoice at the thought you may one day live up to your own standards.
1) Well, in this point you've seen me ask for evidence over and over, and my opponents refuse to supply it. Your day has come.
2) Besides, it's not as if you don't make massive assumptions as well. You can't PROVE naturalism or the value of evidence, or the reliability of your cognitive faculties. You take that all on faith, so don't point fingers when it comes to assumptions.
Be it resolved that forced marriage is moral, according to you.
1) Now you're retreating to an argument from personal outrage. Why should anyone care?
2) Why is this a surprise? ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good. I've asked you to respond to that by demanding an objective standard of good and evil on your worldview. You never provide it. So... you're stuck.
"I can see why you wouldn't want to imagine yourself in the circumstances of an ancient female war-captive".
Quite, b/c I like my life now. For the 4th time, so what?
Your question was to provide a standard, and I have
Fine, then. Since, on Christianity, ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good, I guess we don't have a problem. Your internal critique isn't going to go far, sorry. (But kudos for at least knowing what that is. Virtually no other commenter around here does.)
Was it moral at one time, but no longer?
Not too many people are in that situation these days, wherein the actual nation's laws are the Mosaic Law, but I don't necessarily see why not, IF the war were just. But it's hard to have a just war, to be sure.
fathers may sell their daughters into slavery
It's clumsy to say "slavery" when you know the imagery that the word conjures in today's discourse. More like indentured servitude, with a limited time scope.
Husbands may also stone their wives to death if they can't provide proof of their virginity upon being married.
Yes. For the 10th time, provide an objective standard by which we can judge whether that's right or wrong.
treating women as chattel
Premise rejected, thus question rejected too. Try proving that women were "chattel" first.
Don't assume it, prove it
Read marriage vows? Ever been married? Besides, if we're talking internal critique, read 1 Cor 7.
So the marriage portion of the prescribed punishment is optional?
You haven't shown it's obligatory. So go ahead and prove your own positive assertion.
The real question is since you think rape is bad, how do you square that with the instances in which the Bible condones it?
Just give us one and we can talk.
I said that a perfect God condemning the results of his own plan makes no sense.
Since you didn't read about the 2 Wills of God, I have no idea why you feel qualified to speak so confidently and yet so ignorantly. You seem to be exhibiting a bit of a martyr complex just b/c I asked you to read an article. Silly me for proposing that you might want to learn about a position before critiquing it.
TK,
That's textbook Nice Guyism. "Hey, I provide food and shelter for you, so you owe me sex."
Just quote me saying that, and we can go from there. But, since you can't, uh oh for you.
OP,
Please prove that unicorn shit isn't delicious.
I can't. That's so funny - *I* realise that proving a universal negative is impossible.
Now please answer MY question. (HINT - The correct answer is: "I can't prove that God's decreed plan is not, in fact, perfect.")
Lighten up dude, was just kidding around with you. Maybe next time I should add a smiley face.
Rhology;
Your memory can't seriously be that short, but OK.
Right there.
If you castigate people up and down for making reasonable assumptions, you lose the right to try to rebut them with ludicrous ones. Your entire response here is just a non-sequitur.
It's an internal critique, rather than an argument from anything. If you scroll upthread, you'll notice I said that modern Christianity seems, from the perspective of an outsider, to take a dim view of forced matrimony. That means that the ethics of forced marriage, according to you at least, are situational, which takes some wrangling to square with the notion of objective morals.
It was fun times watching you try to wriggle out of the manifest unpleasantness of it all. If you're not actually bothered by your dear and fluffy Lord grinding his beloved children into the dirt, then don't be.
Well, that depends on how cool you are with being impaled on Euthyphro's horns. Either the nature from which those commands ultimately derive is itself arbitrary, or its goodness has to be defined in terms that do not simply refer back to it being God's nature. Otherwise you're left in a hopelessly self-referential mess.
The passage quoted at Ken Pulliam's site linked above only provides for a limited time scope of slavery (or servitude for the delicate) in the event that her master decides to dispense with her in one of several prescribed ways.
I don't know how many times I've responded to a similar effect now, but according to some Christians, murder is objectively wrong, forever and always.
Selling people makes them chattel. Giving someone else the discretion to take their life for the crime of having used their own body as they see fit makes them chattel.
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
The passage quoted phrases it as what shall be done in the event of rape. If you can provide something that plausibly demonstrates that these were meant to be taken as optional guidelines, I'll concede the day on this point.
Ken has that covered, and I know that you know that. Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
I straight up told you I didn't feel like reading about your favorite form of fan fiction; I didn't want to make a bigger thing out of it than I already have, but since you continue to remark on it, I will explain that I loathe reading theology for its own sake. I do hope you're not under the impression that I am in any way embarrassed to be reminded of my own straightforward conduct.
How about I just thank you for the link and promise to read it if and when I am curious. For the mean time, if you have no intention of giving me an explanation in your own words, just say so. Like I say, it's entirely your prerogative what you explain or don't, no harm no foul. Though you may want to explain the Ray Comfort reference; seriously, that guy is a tool.
TK,
Oh, OK. Sorry. It is admittedly difficult to lighten up around these here parts.
Fortuna,
F: You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
R: Where?
F: One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
R: To show that YOU DON'T KNOW.
Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like I was saying that you don't know. If you saw therein an implication that *I* know, I'm not sure that's my fault. Maybe, just maybe, I meant "you don't know" and that's all.
If you castigate people up and down for making reasonable assumptions
Ah, an ipse dixit from you, that it's reasonable. OK, gotcha.
Apparently demanding evidence is only acceptable when it's in service of Mother Atheism. If someone asks for evidence in a way that might reflect poorly on an assertion coming from an atheist, you're suddenly not all that concerned with substantiation.
Your entire response here is just a non-sequitur.
Apparently you don't know what "non sequitur" means, which is a shame.
modern Christianity seems, from the perspective of an outsider, to take a dim view of forced matrimony.
That might be the problem, then. I have zero interest in defending "modern Christianity" in most cases. One would have to be very specific, and I'd take it on a case-by-case basis. What I *do* defend is biblical Christianity and the Bible. Unfortunately, much as I wish they were synonymous, they're not.
That means that the ethics of forced marriage, according to you at least, are situational, which takes some wrangling to square with the notion of objective morals.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I'd agree that the Deut 21 psg does refer to a more or less forced marriage (which, again, does not equate with rape w/o an argument to that effect). The difference is that God commands certain things for certain contexts and other things in others. Whatever those commands are, they are objective and objectively applicable to the persons to whom the commands are directed, but not every command is necessarily applicable to everyone at all times. We can be sure if the commands applies to us, to obey it is objectively good and to disobey it is objectively wrong, but of course not every communication from God applies to everyone, and not all apply equally.
A few examples of across-the-board application: Don't kill anyone w/o justification (ie, murder). Don't rape.
An example of specific application: OT Israelites are not to wear mixed fabrics. (Here's the why and how we know the difference.)
Well, that depends on how cool you are with being impaled on Euthyphro's horns.
Euthyphro is a paper tiger. I take one "horn" - things are good b/c God commands them. Yes, God's commands are arbitrary, but He's the Creator and the omnipotent and all-good one, the very standard of goodness and righteousness. He makes the rules, and tbh I'm only too happy to let Him do so.
Otherwise you're left in a hopelessly self-referential mess.
Like you are. But fortunately, I'm in a theoreferential situation.
The passage quoted at Ken Pulliam's site linked above only provides for a limited time scope of slavery (or servitude for the delicate) in the event that her master decides to dispense with her in one of several prescribed ways.
1) Yes, precisely. So what's the problem?
2) Pulliam, BTW, has proven himself incapable of discussing these things with any deep degree of understanding. Y'all both are apparently ignorant of the laws of Sabbath restoration and of Jubilee.
according to some Christians, murder is objectively wrong, forever and always.
Correct, murder is always wrong.
1) Now prove that you know the definition of murder (hint: I provided one in this very comment), and how this can't apply to God.
2) You apparently know the meaning of the TERM "internal critique", but you're having difficulty applying it to me. Let me help - I'm a conservative, inerrantist, Calvinist Reformed Baptist. I'm not a liberal or a mainliner - your critiques of "modern Christianity" mean nothing to me. I agree that most of modern Xtianity is biblically ignorant and neglectful. So you need to deal with MY position, or go over to the Mainstream Baptist blog and try your wares there. Not that Prescott will let you comment more than once if you disagree with him...
Selling people makes them chattel
OK, well, fair enough.
Will you recognise that the OT system of indentured servitude means that one can render himself chattel?
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
B/c, again, if you read the whole psg, you'll see that they, you know, get married to their captors.
Besides, if we're talking internal critique, read 1 Cor 7.
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
Not the war-captive part of their life. The married part, after they get married. And I refer to the part in 1 Cor 7 about the wife's body not belonging to herself and the husband's not to himself.
The passage quoted phrases it as what shall be done in the event of rape
Yep, and directed TO THE MAN.
I straight up told you I didn't feel like reading about your favorite form of fan fiction;
So you admit that you had no desire from the beginning to learn about the critique you were making. Why should anyone respect that, again?
Tell you what, lemme demonstrate. Evolution is false b/c bananas are perfectly designed and situated for human consumption. Booyah, I have now used the kind of argumentation (ie, ignorant) that you apparently favor to prove evolution is garbage. Boo. Yah.
How about I just thank you for the link and promise to read it if and when I am curious.
That's fine, when you concede that you do not have close to sufficient understanding to mount a meaningful internal critique on your original challenge about decree vs command.
since you continue to remark on it
Um, YOU brought it up, and YOU'RE whining about how I won't condense it to a few sentences. Me, I have every reason to doubt that atheist interlocutors have very much meaningful knowledge of Xtian theology; why would *I* bring it up or harp on it?
If you don't want to keep talking about it, say: "Fair enough, I threw that out there w/o any substantiation. I retract."
Though you may want to explain the Ray Comfort reference; seriously, that guy is a tool.
You know, you're a trifle tiring.
For now the, what, 15th time, please explain on what basis you make any pejorative towards anyone? What is the telos to which you appeal? I'd say that leaving the same question unanswered 15 times makes the not-answerer a bit of a tool, myself.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology
What is rape?
Rhology, you seriously need to grasp that before you make any objective claims on the basis of theology, you need to show that there is a theo to have an ology about. I realise you get your jollies claiming that your morality is all nice and objective because God said to do like so, but since gods are imaginary, they don't justify any moral viewpoint; come to which, if they weren't imaginary, they still wouldn't, but that's another Euthyphro-esque story.
This is a god-free universe, as far as we can tell, and this one life is the only go round any of us gets, as far as we can tell. Filling another person's life with needless pain and suffering, or ending their life against their will, is an asshole thing to do, because you're treating other people in ways you really wouldn't want them to treat you.
That enough of a telos for you? Or do I have to dress it in Santa Claus or Xenu or whichever imaginary friend you favour- oh yeah, Yahweh, right, the one with the foreskin fetish and the taste for barbecue- before you'll consider that being nice to people is maybe better than being horrible?
This is a god-free universe, as far as we can tell
This is quite a convo. I think this is hilarious, because Stephen demands evidence for God, any of which Rhology would give him would simply be discarded and interpreted through the obvious presupposition of naturalism that Stephen holds to, and then Stephen offers up his own little claim to truth himself. Saying there is no God is as much a claim to truth as saying there is a God, which requires the same burden of proof. The "hidden" assumption of atheism is quite glaring. So, what's your evidence for atheism?
Filling another person's life with needless pain and suffering, or ending their life against their will, is an asshole thing to do, because you're treating other people in ways you really wouldn't want them to treat you.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? The people who think that all life exists as it does now because of a system where animals treated other animals the way they didn't want to be treated are complaining that it's "wrong" for Rho to question them. Who are you to tell another individual what is "wrong"? What if Rhology doesn't think it's "wrong"? Prove that he's "wrong".
"Saying there is no God is as much a claim to truth as saying there is a God, which requires the same burden of proof."
Saying "there is no god" is the negation of "there is a god". So if we assess the probability of "there is a god" as a binomial random variable according to Bayes rule and find that the probability of god existing given the evidence is zero or close to zero, then the negation (lets call it ng = (1 - pg) is either one or close to one. Thus, if we agree that there is a lack of evidence for god then we also agree, by implication, that there is positive evidence for there being no god.
Rhology;
If you admit you implied something in order to illustrate that "we don't know", I take as a given that you implied it. Maybe I'm just silly like that.
Just so you don't repeat it yet again, yes, I realize you also meant "you don't know", at least eventually.
This is apparent to no-one but you.
I take it you are inferring that from the silence towards the atheists on this thread? I hope I don't have to explain the fallacy.
Non of that vebal spew addressed my point.
Fair enough.
Fair enough.
Providing an explanation for why God's nature itself is good, non-arbitrary and not vacuously self-referential in its goodness is the problem for you.
Also...holy shit, really? You outright admit you take one of the horns? Cool.
The slave-owner is under no actual obligation to free their property unless they feel like it. That edges the practice more towards slavery than indentured servitude.
If I have you correctly, then, killing a non-virginal bride was justified back in the day. No need for the inevitable "so what', I get that you're cool with it.
Sure.
What is the relevance of modern-day marriage vows in this context? You asked me if I had heard any such, and obviously I have, but so what?
Why should one think that this psg, from the New Testament, is relevant to the events of the OT?
So?
Respect it or not as you please, but you can't say I had no desire to learn. I've asked you directly several times to explain it yourself; why would I do that if I wasn't at least somewhat interested in an answer?
It's like you can't go more than a handful of sentences without misrepresenting me. I've only invited you to explain it in your own words, not to condense it into "a few sentences". At no point have I actually complained at your refusal to do so; on the contrary, how many times have I said it's no big deal what you choose to address?
At this point, you've probably expended more sentences just being pointlessly snarky than an actual explanation would have taken.
The feeling is mutual.
I do believe that would actually be the first time you've asked me that particular question, old bean.
Deploying arguments one knows to be mind-meltingly incorrect (but appealing to some) in service of one's agenda makes one a tool of said agenda; at that point, one is holding "the cause" in higher regard than one's personal integrity.
@bossmanham: the claim that "as far as we can tell, there are no leprechauns" has a vastly different standard of proof from "There are leprechauns". You propose the existence of the entity, you have the burden of proof. Please learn to think before typing.
Saying there is no God is as much a claim to truth as saying there is a God
But Stephen wrote "as far as we can tell." That means he admits there is some possibility. However, probably like myself, he thinks it is one thing to speculate about the possibility of our universe being created by a higher intelligence, whereas it is entirely another thing to claim that one's religious beliefs provide an objective standard that is binding on all of us.
Am I the only one who sees the irony here? The people who think that all life exists as it does now because of a system where animals treated other animals the way they didn't want to be treated are complaining that it's "wrong" for Rho to question them.
I don't have a problem with Rho questioning anything, and I believe it was on the Mainstream Baptist thread where I defended his right, as he would surely acknowledge himself if he remembers it. I also chided a commenter for using vulgar language.
And as for your jibe at natural selection, it entails a lot more than that. You left out the impact of climate change, plate tectonics, volcanic eruptions, asteroid collisions and other events that played a role.
@108 Stephen Wells,
before you make any objective claims on the basis of theology, you need to show that there is a theo to have an ology about
1) Ask Fortuna what an "internal critique" is. This'll help.
2) Before you make any objective claims on the basis of evidence, you need to show that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at interpreting evidence, and that evidence actually exists.
because you're treating other people in ways you really wouldn't want them to treat you.
That enough of a telos for you?
Nope, not even close. Why SHOULD I treat people according to the "Silver Rule"? Why not abuse them to gain power, and then abuse them even more once I have the power I desire? Give me one good reason.
@111 Fortuna,
If you admit you implied something in order to illustrate that "we don't know", I take as a given that you implied it. Maybe I'm just silly like that.
Sorry, man. Sometimes "you don't know, prove your case with some evidence" just means "you don't know, prove your case with some evidence".
This is apparent to no-one but you.
Great! So, where's your evidence?
If you don't have any, why haven't you done the intellectually honest thing and conceded that yet?
I take it you are inferring that from the silence towards the atheists on this thread?
After 111 comments, you think there's been "silence" on this thread? OK. Seems to me there's been a lot of noise made, a lot of attempts, and as many failures to bring forth that evidence.
Providing an explanation for why God's nature itself is good, non-arbitrary and not vacuously self-referential in its goodness is the problem for you.
The impossibility of the contrary. That is, God has identified Himself as the ultimate grounding for good, and if God Himself does not ground ultimate good, then there is no alternative other than solipsistic tautological "Whatever I do and prefer = moral".
You outright admit you take one of the horns? Cool.
Yep, really. Why should it bother me to confess biblical theology, when that's always been my position? Like I said, paper tiger.
The slave-owner is under no actual obligation to free their property unless they feel like it.
Wrong. This isn't the only way in which you're wrong but it's a good start.
If I have you correctly, then, killing a non-virginal bride was justified back in the day.
Correct.
If I have you correctly, you might think you're above that sort of nonsense. I merely insist that you give me a reason to think you are.
What is the relevance of modern-day marriage vows in this context
B/c the war brides are brides.
Why should one think that this psg, from the New Testament, is relevant to the events of the OT?
B/c they reflect God's attitude toward marriage from the beginning.
Respect it or not as you please, but you can't say I had no desire to learn.
Sure I can. Let me quote you:
There's no way I'm reading the multiple linked articles in sequence, though. I'm not honestly that curious about your favorite myth.
Deploying arguments one knows to be mind-meltingly incorrect (but appealing to some) in service of one's agenda makes one a tool of said agenda; at that point, one is holding "the cause" in higher regard than one's personal integrity.
1) Well, we'd need some evidence that these claims are incorrect, wouldn't we?
2) Please give a reason anyone should think that "personal integrity" is of any great import.
3) Please also objectively define "integrity".
If opinion is offered empirical evidence is demanded.
If empirical evidence is provided the blather begins regarding the weakness of empiricism.
If a question is answered it is claimed to have gone unanswered.
When it is demonstrated to have been answered fully, definitions will be demanded.
When definitions are provided they will be dismissed as subjective.
When they are demonstrated to be objective by empirical evidence the blather begins regarding the weakness of empiricism.
And round and round goes the Rho.
Rho@#94
"1) Yes. Being married sort of usually implies consent to sex."
That is repugnant beyond words.
You can't believe that.
Funny, I was under the impression that having non-consensual sex with your wife could still land your ass in prison, where your ass might get to experience yet more non-consensual sex.
Jesse, going to prison sort of implies consent to sex!
That is repugnant beyond words. You can't believe that.
Please provide evidence that what you intuit as "repugnant" should apply to anyone else. Is the statement "I, Prometheus, find this view repugnant" similar or identical to "This view is morally wrong"? If not, why should I care? If so, please offer your argument to that effect.
You go you righteous online warrior for Christ! :-)
Rho,
Maybe I missed your answer, but what is rape?
@120 Joe,
Rape: the compelling of someone through physical force or duress to engage in sexual activity.
I doubt "my" definition differs much from anyone else's here, but what hasn't been shown is that the Deuteronomy 21 war brides never gave their consent. It's just been assumed, despite my requesting evidence I don't know how many times.
Please provide evidence that what you intuit as "repugnant" should apply to anyone else.
No.
Not because I can't but because your prose is also repugnant.
Is the statement "I, Prometheus......yadayadayada
Again no.
See #115
For, as always, you are pointlessly prolix, fatuous and florid with no interest in the fruit of discourse.
Your attempt to engage in the dialectic is just borrowing additional ears to attend what you regard as the world's most exquisite sound.
The sound of your own gums flapping.
"If not, why should I care?"
Because you're not an island. You live in a world with other human beings and their collective subjective opinion of you affects your life, sometimes in profound ways.
"I doubt "my" definition differs much from anyone else's here, but what hasn't been shown is that the Deuteronomy 21 war brides never gave their consent."
In other words, a negative hasn't been proven.
"It's just been assumed, despite my requesting evidence I don't know how many times."
As has been explained to you before, the evidence is the fact that they were fucking war brides and the Bible never says anything about getting their consent first. I would think that the latter criterion would matter quite a bit to a Biblical literalist, but I guess they're just as selective as anyone else. Who knew?
Dunno, but you certainly appear to care.
BTW, I too find that view repugnant, although unlike Prometheus, I think you actually believe it.
"Rape: the compelling of someone through physical force or duress to engage in sexual activity. "
Good, we have a definition.
Your position is that rape is never condoned, ordered or approved of by God in the Old Testament. Is this correct?
Rhology, you're failing to read for comprehension. Whether other people share my moral judgements depends on how closely they share my moral premises, which I conveniently stated for you, rather than saying "because God says so". If you don't share my premises, then at least we all know to avoid you like the backstabbing weasel you would be if you dared. If you're only restrained by snivelling fear rather than rational morality, that'll do for practical purposes, but I pity you for it.
Also, it's irrelevant whether war brides in Deuteronomy NEVER gave consent; for rape to have occurred it suffices for even one of them to have not given consent. Nice attempt at a goalpost-shift but you're not getting away with that one.
<Rho>
B-b-b-b-b-b-but PROVE IT!
</Rho>
Rho will never understand that, to have the right to say that a thing is wrong, all we have to do is say: here are my standards of judgement, and by these lights, the thing is wrong. You disagree with my judgement, you get to argue, by saying what your standards of judgement are. This raises the terrifying spectre of taking responsibility for your own moral judgement, not claiming that a god made it OK. I don't think Rho has the courage for it.
"Shekels" 50 old testament shekels=160-200 bucks @ 250 grams of silver with the rarity level/purchasing power for the region and adjusting forward because everybody everywhere in every time has some description that involves bitching about the price of bread.
"War Brides" are women who voluntarily marry members of an occupation force, allies stationed in their country or liberation forces of another country. This term applies to nice Australian Army nurses who marry nice fighter pilots from Kansas....not a 13 year old Canaanite girl being dragged away by some slobbering old patriarch with blood in his beard because the last two children he violated hit menopause or died in childbirth without giving him sons.
You guys are discussing "captives". Civilian prisoners treated as chattel slaves. If you rape one of the chattel slaves they are "ruined" for ransom and you can't sell them because you might be selling your own potential offspring into slavery.
You can "legitimize" them by taking one home and after allowing her to mourn for her family (the one you murdered)rape her. If you don't enjoy it, kick her out to starve but don't sell her (offspring into slavery problem again).
Just clearing things up.
If you want to spin your wheels in the mud let's make sure they are the regulation wheel for that sort of thing.
Good point, Prometheus.
@129
Wouldn't finding a conversion from shekels to goats or something of the sort be a little more useful? I suspect that the way we value precious metals differs significantly from the way they were valued back then. Food, on the other hand was certainly valued more then than it is today because of our behemoth agricultural machine and refrigeration, but it is still food and people still require it to live.
Jesse@131
It turns out the best system for adjustment is how much of whatever denomination buys a days weight in bread/rice. Then you test the formula against other exemplars from the period to see how your conversion and adjustments forward hold up.
You can extrapolate pretty effectively in Southern Europe, the far east and the middle east from gold to silver to bronze in set proportions with a few anomalies for trade fluctuations like Byzantium being cut off of silver supply and Egypt being fairly closed with very little silver and a buttload of gold.
The norm is 12 to 1 silver to gold and the third world day wage matches up pretty well with an unskilled ancient labor wage of about a buck fifty.
I know a Bulgarian PhD who has done nothing but valuation and denomination studies of ancient middle eastern coinage for 40 years.
The subject still bores the pants off of me but he is inestimably important to curators all over the planet.
Wow. You guys got from artificial life to angels-and-pinheads in record time. Way to throw a penny on the track there, Rho. Too bad, really, it was an interesting post.
@131: consider the difference between "a measure of wheat for a penny" and "a measure of wheat for a day's wages"; both valid translations of a verse from Revelations, but with very different implications.
First, let me say that the work of Venter is fascinating. It gets us closer to learning how life may have begun. I have to admit that a lot of it is over my head, but it's definitely cool to read about.
Second: Rho, as a woman who has been raped,all I can say is if you TRULY believe what you are saying, you are a despicable human being. Rape isn't about sex. Rape is about POWER. Rape shows that person A is more powerful then person B (at least in person A's mind). It might entail holding a gun to someone's head, or being a fully grown adult male overpowering a young teenage girl and shoving his penis into her. It is dehumanizing to ignore fact that UNCONSENSUAL SEX of ANY type is rape. It doesn't matter if I say no to my husband or to a stranger off the street; NO means NO and if either person continues with the activity it is rape. NO money in the world can make up for the feeling of loss. And I can't fathom being turned over to my rapist as a wife. THINK about what you are saying. If a woman forced you into having sex with her (yes, women can rape men), would you feel OK about your father giving her money and forcing you to marry her? After all, your bible says that if you have sex with someone you should be married or it's adultary. So fine. You be raped and marry your rapist.
ERV: sorry for the rant, but Rho really pushed my buttons.
@122 Prometheus,
So, no answer to my question. Didn't think so.
Tell you what, to help illustrate, let's swap the terms a bit but keep Prometheus' "argument".
Raymond: I believe in young-earth creationism. It is my intuition that YEC is true and that to believe in evolution is repugnant beyond words. You can't believe that.
Prometheus: Please provide evidence that what you intuit is true. Please provide evidence that what you intuit as "repugnant" should apply to anyone else.
Raymond: No. Not because I can't but because your prose is also repugnant. For, as always, you are pointlessly prolix, fatuous and florid with no interest in the fruit of discourse.
Wow! What an impressive argument! I mean, you even used some big words; I'll bet your 6th grade teacher would be proud.
Anytime you feel like actually trying to substantiate your assertions, I'm willing to listen.
@123 Tyler,
You live in a world with other human beings and their collective subjective opinion of you affects your life, sometimes in profound ways.
1) So what? What's the prescriptive and normative power of the statement "you live with other humans"?
2) Maybe I'm glad to live with other humans, b/c that means more slaves to do my will. What is morally wrong with that statement?
In other words, a negative hasn't been proven.
Exactly! Now you're getting it. Maybe those who were so hasty to try to make this statement should be more careful in the arguments they use.
As has been explained to you before, the evidence is the fact that they were fucking war brides and the Bible never says anything about getting their consent first.
And it doesn't say anything about NOT getting it either. You're assuming 4 problematic things:
1) You can't prove the sex was forced. All you can make is anachronistic judgments from your comfy chair 5 millennia later.
2) You have no idea of the state of mind of the women or the men in question.
3) Deut 21 is not an exhaustive treatise on how married men are to treat their wives. After all, these are wives, not sex slaves, not even concubines (which themselves had legal rights). Deut 21 is dealing with redeeming some women from their self-destructive communities whom God had judged, putting these women into a situation where they could know God and have legal rights under God's Law, and by which some Israelite men could obtain wives. You want laws governing how to deal with one's wife, look elsewhere.
4) If some men forced sex from the women in question, you have even further to go to prove this would be God's fault. God lays down laws; it comes as zero surprise to the Christian that some people might actually --gasp!!-- sin and deviate from His Law.
In short, you've got nothing, that's been clearly seen here. Despite all your attempts, even you had to admit that a negative hasn't been proven.
When that's all you have, maybe you should move on.
@124 Dave,
Dunno, but you certainly appear to care.
About Prometheus' moral pontifications? Um, not really. What gave you that impression?
@125 Joe,
Your position is that rape is never condoned, ordered or approved of by God in the Old Testament
Correct.
@126 Stephen Wells,
If you don't share my premises, then at least we all know to avoid you like the backstabbing weasel you would be if you dared.
I'm devastated, shedding hot tears. Just so you know.
Look, maybe you're not getting this - I'm after facts on these questions, not your opinions, as if you were some sort of Pope of Morality. I don't know where you think you got your authority to make moral pronouncements that you think should prescribe and proscribe behavior for anyone else, but that's why I asked you to provide the factual basis for it. If you can't provide that substantiation, then I don't see why I and everyone else shouldn't dismiss your judgmental attempts to tell us what we get to and don't get to do.
for rape to have occurred it suffices for even one of them to have not given consent. Nice attempt at a goalpost-shift but you're not getting away with that one.
So prove one of them didn't give consent. It's not like I haven't asked for evidence 12 times now.
all we have to do is say: here are my standards of judgement, and by these lights, the thing is wrong.
Um, I think I knew that already - that your standards of judgment are self-referential and tautological. I'm looking for the prescriptive power, the justification of the standards you use.
This raises the terrifying spectre of taking responsibility for your own moral judgement
Prove that it is morally a good thing to "take responsibility for my own moral judgment". Don't assume it. Prove it.
@133 fnxtr,
Way to throw a penny on the track there, Rho.
Maybe you weren't paying attention, but look at Comment #2.
'Twas the ignoramus Jesse @16 who brought up the issue of rape. See? Doesn't it feel better to get your facts straight?
Peace,
Rhology
Stephen Wells @#134
Good example.
You then adjust for time and location of writing (somewhere between Nero and Domitian) and you get around two bucks or an eighth of a bushel of wheat or three eighths of a bushel of barley.
A whole loaf of bread or two beers.
If we carry this valuation back to the old testament time and location (mideast @ 630 years earlier) without modification (which you shouldn't but its a silly topic anyway)then you have a heuristic value.
Hence:
Rape means you must buy the girl's Dad 100 beers or if he's a Cananite you can just stab t Dad in the belly grab the girl and buy yourself a couple of goats.
The only thing more absurd than trying to make Old Testament savagery defensible is trying to make it applicable now.
Yes, but what KIND of penny is it? One of the classics with the Lincoln Memorial on the back or the new, asstarded "Captain America shield" penny? Moreover, if we backcalculate to Phoenician times, would we etc etc etc.
(I kid because I love. These days I pretty much only click comment threads when I see Prometheus' name on the sidebar.)
Rho,
Ok, it's clear that your position is that rape is never condoned, ordered or approved of by God in the Old Testament.
What about forced marriage, where forced marriage is a marriage in which the woman has no choice or say in the matter and/or is married without her freely given consent and despite her objections to the marriage? Is this ever condoned, ordered or approved of by God in the Old Testament? I believe that you said that you'd agree that the Deut 21 passage does refer to a more or less forced marriage, and I assume that you'd agree that that God is commanding, ordering or condoning the actions describe in Deut 21. I'm asking the question anyway, because I want to be certain that I understand your position.
@139 Joe,
Yes, it would appear that Deut 21 does refer to forced marriages, more or less.
1) To begin with, in the AncientNearEast, marriages were arranged. The idea of consensual marriage is anachronistic.
2) You'd need to offer an argument for why your modern, provincial, socially-conditioned view of marriage is morally superior to traditional customs which still prevailed in many parts of the world (if indeed you mean to criticise the biblical law here).
3) A war bride enjoyed civil rights. Instead of suffering the fate of an involuntary concubine, she enjoys the rights of a Jewish wife, which is more than she would enjoy under ANE law in general.
4) Keep in mind the historical circumstances. Weâre talking about survival in a world of warrior cultures. In the ANE, a woman without men to protect her would be completely defenseless. (HT: Steve Hays)
5) Plus what I said above about having been redeemed from an evil culture.
Dawn @135,
I have no words to express how horrified I am at your having been raped. Please hear me - I am not attempting in any way to minimise the horror of rape.
It is dehumanizing to ignore fact that UNCONSENSUAL SEX of ANY type is rape.
I agree, for modern Western women. However, that is not how it's been for much of human history. It's one thing to grab a girl off the street, hold a knife to her throat, and force yourself on her, and it's quite another to arrange a marriage that the girl might not have been totally thrilled about, but with which she reluctantly cooperates, and as a matter of marital conscience, grudgingly has sex with her husband.
And I can't fathom being turned over to my rapist as a wife.
And I wouldn't expect you to. But I hope you'll look at the comments I've made over the course of this thread related to counterfactual hypotheticals, putting myself into the position of an Ancient Near East woman 5 millennia ago, and agree that such speculation is really not possible.
would you feel OK about your father giving her money and forcing you to marry her?
Dawn, the bottom line is that my feelings are of secondary importance. God is the absolute standard for morality, and I obey commands that I don't feel like obeying, and I am obligated to obey much more than I do, for things I like even less.
(Note that I'm not granting that rape is condoned in the Bible; I'm just saying that God trumps mere man.)
"Yes, it would appear that Deut 21 does refer to forced marriages, more or less."
Now, once the marriage is official, what happens when the man wants sex? Presumably, these marriages would almost all include sex, and in the case of the captive virgins, the passage makes it very clear that the man is strongly motivated by sexual desire. The soldier has brought back the virgin because he wants to have sex with her.
What happens if the woman doesn't want to have sex with the man? Given the circumstances of many forced marriages, and especially in the case of the war booty marriage, this is very, very likely to be the case. What are her options? Is she fully free to refuse, given that she was forced against her will to marry, and is required to submit to her husband and/or if she refuses, she will fail to please and be dumped as a dishonored, humbled, humiliated, forced-to-bend-the-knee cast-off?
If saying no means terrible consequences, and if the woman only agrees to sex as a means of avoiding those consequences, then how is this NOT "compelling someone through physical force or duress to engage in sexual activity"?
Put it another way, how can marriage "imply consent to sex" when the woman did not consent to the marriage in the first place?
I agree, for modern Western women.
âWhen I use a word,â Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, âit means just what I choose it to mean â neither more nor less."
I am not attempting in any way to minimise the horror of rape.
Yeah, you are. You're attempting to minimize it by pretending that it isn't rape.
I had a long response to Rho that I just deleted, because a) he will never understand how a woman feels because he is male and his god is male and therefore males rule and b) this thread has been de-railed enough.
I don't plan on responding to Rho again.
Rhology: I'm not suggesting that God would ever command you to rape a woman; but if he did, would you carry out his command? I don't need a complicated answer - a simple yes or no will do.
Rhology the lying sack of shit:
Yes, you are. By pretending rape isn't rape, and by endorsing the barbaric practice of selling women to rapists, you ARE trying (and failing) to minimize the horror of rape. And you're lying about it because you're too much of a worthless fucking coward to own up to the vile shit you're saying. You are scum.
Rhology, devil worshipper:
This "absolute standard of morality" that you've been babbling about here, endorsing the sale of women to rapists, genocide, and countless other atrocities, isn't worth shit. The god you worship is a god of pure evil. You are the willing slave of an imaginary monster, and you have torn out yor conscience, compassion, your very humanity to offer as a burnt sacrifice to this figment of your diseased mind. If your psychotic god were real, it not only would not be worthy of worship, but it would deserve to be put down like a rabid dog for the good of the human race.
Rhology BELONGS in the spam filter. Rhology is a sick apologist for a murderous rapist death cult, without a speck of honesty or shame. Such a lowlife has no place in civilized society.
sorry for the rant, but Rho really pushed my buttons.
No worries, Dawn. He tends to have that effect on people. The trick is to recognize that fact and then not let what he writes ruffle your feathers. Like water off a duck's back. Rho is obviously very passionate about his religious faith. Other commenters here might not realize that he spends a lot of his Internet time in debates and arguments with Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxers in addition to us merry atheists.
My sympathies also for the terrible experience you had. I can't imagine that it is easy to deal with.
Rhology: I'm not suggesting that God would ever command you to rape a woman; but if he did, would you carry out his command? I don't need a complicated answer - a simple yes or no will do.
Paul, the problem with that question from what I understand to be the Christian point of view is that since God's commandments are expressed in the Bible, God is not going to suddenly appear or speak to Christians today and tell them to act in ways that are not in accordance with what has already been laid out in the Bible.
Rhology is a sick apologist for a murderous rapist death cult, without a speck of honesty or shame. Such a lowlife has no place in civilized society.
Now there's someone whose buttons have been pushed! LOL!
Phantomreader, while the bulk of us here vehemently disagree with Rho's views, it's going a bit over the top to describe him as you did above. Do you honestly think he and members of his church are or are likely to be going around committing acts of murder and rape in central Oklahoma?
I agree with you that the god he worships is a mental construct rather than an actual existing entity. One of the appeals of monotheistic religions such as Christianity, as well as Islam, is that they espouse universal messages, and what are perceived to be god's commandments transcend race, nationality and ethnicity. That is why they like to claim that their morals have an objective basis. Of course, their own moral codes are the subjective beliefs of the people who set them down and then wrapped them up in the guise of a divine command system to give them the appearance of objectivity. But we can discuss things like that without slinging mud at each other.
tommykey @ #148:
If Rhology, or anyone who believes the bullshit he claims to believe (though I don't discount the possibility that he's been lying through his teeth all along), became convinced that his imaginary god wanted him to rape and murder people, then he would rape and murder any number of innocent people, anywhere, any time he had the chance, without any shame or remorse. And since the allegedly holy book of this imaginary deity has it endorsing rape, human sacrifice, genocide, and countless other acts of depravity, there is nothing at all stopping Rhology or someone like him from deluding himself into believing that god DID want him to commit such atrocities. The nature of a religious cult encourages delusions of divine endorsement for whatever the cultist already wants to do, discourages questioning such delusions, and promotes leaders who abuse the faith of the followers for money and power, sometimes ending in death. Maybe Rhology himself isn't a budding serial rapist and murderer. But if he is, what checks are there on his behavior, since he thinks whatever madness enters his hollow head is the perfect will of almighty god?
Rhology's idea of "morality" is nothing more than mindless obedience to an imaginary and purely arbitrary tyrant. He cares not at all about the consequences of his actions in the real world. Nothing from outside will penetrate his delusions, as is quite clear from this thread. Even if Rhology himself isn't going to go on a rape and murder spree, how large a church does it take before some members will, without even considering the possibility that there might be a problem with that? And what if the rapist manages to get into a leadership position?
Got a response stuck in moderation. A moral system based entirely on mindless obedience, with no check in reality, does nothing to stop people from commiting atrocities, and actively encourages it if they end up with a bad leader. And bad leaders love to seek out such groups, since they don't think for themselves or question authority.
If god were real, it would be evil, and the world would be better off without it. People who fear imaginary punishments so much that they would obey such a monster without question deserve pity and contempt, not power or deference.
Well Rhology, you asked why you should "care". Mu answer was presumably the same as the answer you'd give if I asked why I should care what God thinks: he'd pwn my ass if I didn't.
I don't think moral prescriptions are facts, they're, well, prescriptions. Morality works in practice because humans are social creatures with a strong inclination toward empathy and solidarity, but the morals themselves are arbitrary. It's unfortunate, but I've never seen any way around it (that would god(s)).
@ Tyler 110
That's actually a terrible line of thinking that according to probability theory. Now it seems to me you are quite adept with some mathematical proofs, which is great. But you seem to have a nack of misapplying them.
Absence of evidence is not positive evidence for anything. Without evidence for something, we cannot therefore conclude that thing doesn't exist. For instance, if we were to apply this method to evolution pre 19th century, we would have to say evolution didn't exist prior to that, since there was very little evidence of it. No, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're probably good at discrete math, but I'd avoid probability theory for the moment.
Also, you assume I have no evidence for God's existence, but that's a bit presumptuous of you.
@ Stephen 112
the claim that "as far as we can tell, there are no leprechauns" has a vastly different standard of proof from "There are leprechauns".
There are good reasons (ie evidence) to believe there are no such Irish small people, as with leprechauns we would expect to see some sort of evidence, like an end of a rainbow. When looking for evidence of something, you must consider whether you should expect to see evidence of that thing. For instance, if someone said there was an elephant in your bedroom, you would probably discount it out of hand because you'd expect to see quite a bit of evidence. But if someone told you there was a flea in your room, the absence of evidence for that flea should not convince you that the flea is not there.
Now, I think there are great amounts of evidence given to us to think God exists. You need to show we should expect to see more evidence if God does exist than we do. I think, however, that your closed minded worldview is what causes you to interpret the evidence that is given incorrectly.
I've never seen good evidence to think God does not exist. The claim that God does not exist carries as much of a burden of as the claim that God does exist, plain and simple.
Phantomreader, I think using his full nom de Internet is what causes the comment to go into moderation because my comment in response to yours that contained a quote from you with his name caused by comment to go into moderation too.
Absence of evidence is not positive evidence for anything. Without evidence for something, we cannot therefore conclude that thing doesn't exist. For instance, if we were to apply this method to evolution pre 19th century, we would have to say evolution didn't exist prior to that, since there was very little evidence of it.
Doesn't quite work that way, Bossmanham. Evolution was an explanation offered upon observation and collection of data which caused people to ask "How did this come about?" Just as an explanation for how craters formed on the moon did not become necessary until Galileo and others turned their telescopes on the moon and became aware of their existence. No one is seriously suggesting that the craters poofed into existence in the split second before Galileo trained his telescope on the moon.
The claim that God does not exist carries as much of a burden of as the claim that God does exist, plain and simple.
As I wrote above, I am sure that most of us leave open the possibility that our universe was created by a higher intelligence. I know I do. However, when one makes specific claims about reality based on one's religious beliefs, then the burden of proof is on the believer to back up those claims. Of course, science should be held to the same criteria as well (man-made global warming, for example), lest you think I am just singling out religion.
bossmanham @ #153:
We assume you have no evidence for your imaginary god's existence because neither you nor any other member of your cult nor any member of ANY religious cult has EVER offered the slightest speck of objective, verifiable, legitimate evidence of ANY deity whatsoever. You're claiming to have evidence, so quit bullshitting and put it on the fucking table. No more weasel words or whining, just put up or shut up. If you don't, we'll take that as an admission that you've got nothing, and you were lying when you said otherwise.
"Without evidence for something, we cannot therefore conclude that thing doesn't exist."
Well, we can certainly do so. Our conclusion will no doubt be fallible and provisional, but it can still be justified. If we ever encounter evidence for god(s) existing, our conclusions can change.
"For instance, if we were to apply this method to evolution pre 19th century, we would have to say evolution didn't exist prior to that, since there was very little evidence of it."
And you would be correct to do so, from a methodological perspective. I certainly would not accept evolution without a good deal of evidence if I were a scientist in the 19th. century, or any century for that matter.
"You're probably good at discrete math, but I'd avoid probability theory for the moment."
HEEEEEY, that hurts! Besides, what about probability theory with discrete random variables? :P
For my next amazing trick, I'd like to remind everyone of 2 facts:
1) Tyler DiPietro, @157, says:
"Without evidence for something, we cannot therefore conclude that thing doesn't exist."
Well, we can certainly do so. Our conclusion will no doubt be fallible and provisional, but it can still be justified. If we ever encounter evidence for god(s) existing, our conclusions can change.
Thanks Tyler! So we'll conclude that absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence.
And given that I've asked repeatedly, I don't know how many times, for evidence of rape in the Deut 21 psg, and gotten nothing in response except for "how would you feel?" and "it's just obvious!" and "well, they coulda raped the brides!" (neglecting to mention that the Law, which is what I'm interested in defending, gives no permission for rape, but if sinful humans might choose to rape someone, that's not the Law's fault), per Tyler D, we can conclude that rape is not, in fact, condoned by the Bible. Thank you!
2) Naturalists like y'all generally deplore the biblical doctrine of the total depravity of man. Instead, you generally assume that mankind is generally basically good.
Yet you have almost unanimously jumped to the least generous and least charitable conclusion (again, I hasten to add, w/o evidence) about these men, that they were raping these women. I find that ironic, and of course quite inconsistent.
Joe @142,
once the marriage is official, what happens when the man wants sex?
Now apparently comes the part where you assume he just hits her across the face and forces himself upon her, rather than romancing her or asking her.
Neither of us have evidence, but I'm not the one making these dogmatic statements.
Given the circumstances of many forced marriages, and especially in the case of the war booty marriage, this is very, very likely to be the case. What are her options?
No recognition of the anachronistic judgment you're engaging in. Already been refuted; now you're just repeating yourself.
Paul C @143,
You're attempting to minimize it by pretending that it isn't rape.
Prove rape occurred. You'd be the 1st on this thread to do so if you did. Not that many haven't tried.
And remember, absence of evidence...
I'm not suggesting that God would ever command you to rape a woman; but if he did, would you carry out his command?
God never has commanded rape. God never has condoned rape. As Tommykey said @147, since God's commandments are expressed in the Bible, God is not going to suddenly appear or speak to Christians today and tell them to act in ways that are not in accordance with what has already been laid out in the Bible.
With that firmly in mind, this is me being consistent, as opposed to everyone else on this thread so far (except for bossmanham): I'm not sure if I *would* b/c I'm a sinner and often don't carry out God's commands, but it would be objectively morally right to do so and objectively morally wrong to refuse.
Attention, everyone - that's what "being consistent with one's position" looks like. You should try it sometime.
ph42 @146
And you're lying about it because you're too much of a worthless fucking coward to own up to the vile shit you're saying. You are scum.
Is that a scientific conclusion? Or are you just emoting?
Do you expect that anyone would take such stuff seriously? If so, why? If not, why say it?
Do you have some evidence that I'm lying? If not, isn't that sort of a serious charge to make without grounds? Why do you disagree with Tyler DiPietro about the evidence of absence? Shouldn't you put your own atheist house in order when it comes to evidence than to throw profanities in my direction?
Rhology, devil worshipper...Rhology is a sick apologist for a murderous rapist death cult, without a speck of honesty or shame.
1) Not even a speck? Didn't I at least quote the Bible correctly?
2) If I'm not honest, why would you expect that I actually believe that which I've been saying here? Or are you really trying to say that you're an emotional blithering idiot?
3) You forgot, since we're discussing my cult, to mention our weekly candlelit meetings wherein we drink the blood of babies born to Democrats. I can't believe you left that out.
@152 Tyler,
you asked why you should "care". M(y) answer was presumably the same as the answer you'd give if I asked why I should care what God thinks: he'd pwn my ass if I didn't.
That's part of my answer, yes, though not all of it.
But if I can gain the power over all challengers, it would appear you have no answer for the contention that I could then exercise my own morality and, free from the spectre of reprisals, be moral in whatever I intuit I should do. Line up all the girls in the world before my door, rape them one at a time, kill their mothers, burn their bodies, enslave all the menfolk... if I intuit that it's right and can accomplish it, what's the problem?
This is the fundamental conclusion of atheism - there is no way to prove that such a thing would be objectively wrong. Whatever human has the power makes the rules.
Morality works in practice because humans are social creatures with a strong inclination toward empathy and solidarity, but the morals themselves are arbitrary.
You mean, morality works in practice...except when it doesn't.
Further, morality works right now b/c it just so happens that most people in the West, around you, think similarly to you. And what if you disagree with most? What if you lived among the Yanomamo, or the circa 1945 Auca people? Since you've hitched your wagon to what people think/what you think, your morality has no power.
"Now apparently comes the part where you assume he just hits her across the face and forces himself upon her, rather than romancing her or asking her. Neither of us have evidence, but I'm not the one making these dogmatic statements."
I don't think that you understand.
What if the woman does not want to have sex? Surely this will be the case in many cases. I'm not saying that this will be true in every single case, but I don't think it's "anachronistic" to assume that a woman would not want to have sex with a man who butchered her people. Do you really think that young woman were so incredibly different 3000 years ago? I am not making "dogmatic statements". I am making the very reasonable and supportable assumption that in many, many cases, a woman would not want to have sex with a man who killed her family.
So, we have woman who have been forced (under duress), into marriage with the killers of their people. Everything up to this point is clearly at the command or approval of God. Now, given that all of these God-commanded events have occurred, if she does not want to have sex with butchers, what are her options? What happens if she refuses to have sex?
There are many kinds of "duress". There are the kinds that involve knives to the throat and there are the kinds that involve the threat of being discarded as a humiliated woman into a world in which, and I quote the illustrious Steve Hays, "a woman without men to protect her would be completely defenseless".
You see, the problem is that God has command, condoned, order or created the conditions under which at least some rape (forced sex, sex under duress) is inevitable. If God condones the throwing of a ball into the air, it doesn't make sense to say that God does not condone part of the continuous action in which the ball falls back to earth.
Also, how can marriage "imply consent to sex" when the woman did not consent to the marriage in the first place?
And how does a butcher "romance" the surviving victims?
Rho, lying through his teeth:
That's only true in the sense that god, due to not existing, is incapable of commanding anything. But since you continue to insist that your god is real, and that it condones selling women to rapists and forcing the surviviors of genocide to marry their families' murderers, you're lying yet again.
Rho, marriage involves sex. You have admitted that your imaginary god commanded forced marriage. Therefore, it commanded forced sex, which is by definition rape. Case closed. You either worship a rapist, or you are pretending to worship a rapist so you can be an asshole troll. Either way, you're worthless scum. Go die in a fire.
Rho's dishonest projection:
You're both projecting AND using a strawman. YOU are the one whose "objective" morality involves mindlessly obeying the admittedly arbitrary commands of an imaginary tyrant in the sky. You don't give a flying fuck about the consequences of your actions, or your fellow human beings, you never did, you never will. You can't even comprehend the very concept of empathy. You're stuck at the most infantile stage, "daddy will spank me if I don't do what he says".
You say the problem with atheism is that it offers no basis for morality other than power. That's not true, but even if it were true your cult doesn't have anything better, it just props up a phony cosmic mob boss who forces his will (which somehow always ends up matching the will of the cult leader) on followers by fear of unending torture. You bow down before a supernatural terrorist because you think it's stronger than you. "Might makes right" is the fundamental conclusion of your cult.
There is one thing that I don't understand. You have no problem with the notion that God commanded genocide, because you hold the position that if God commanded it, it's a good and moral act. So why go all squishy on us in the case of rape?
If God commanded a series of actions that would inevitably result in rape (by your definition of rape), then you could just use the same rationalization that you've used for genocide. One is forbidden to kill unless ordered by God, one is forbidden to kill if ordered to rape. If the excuse if valid in the case of genocide, why not use it in the case of rape? You have your all-purpose, get out of jail free card, so why not just shrug and say that God can condone rape, too, because God rules? After genocide, condoning rape is a pip.
Sorry, one of the above sentences should read...
One is forbidden to kill unless ordered by God, one is forbidden to rape unless ordered to rape.
Since Rhology is A-OK with God commanding genocide- you know, the bit about slaughtering all the inhabitants of the land except the virgin women - you'd think he could just come out and say that the subsequent rapes are also fine.
Also, Rho, it's hilarious that you think a standard of morality based on people's life and happiness "has no power", whereas one based on a book of myths is fine. Of course morality is based on people's interactions with each other. What else could it be based on? Fictitious celestial tyrants are no basis for a way of life.
Stephen Wells:
Nor for a system of government. Frankly I'd prefer strange women in ponds distributing swords. :P
What?! You can't suppose to weild supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Kemanorel @ #165:
No, supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses. But the farcical aquatic ceremony is at least more amusing than "trust me, the big guy in the sky said you have to do what I say or he'll torture you forever."
I think it should be *some* of the masses. I honestly think there should be a test about what each candidate actually advocates, and if you can't answer at least 70% (60%? 80%) of the questions correctly (probably because the person is too damn lazy to take the time to learn), you shouldn't get a vote.
Pre-emptive:
*BLAH BLAH DESCRIMINATORY WARBLE GARBLE*
Only in the sense that people that don't bother to learn about what their voting for won't have their vote count.
But if I can gain the power over all challengers, it would appear you have no answer for the contention that I could then exercise my own morality and, free from the spectre of reprisals, be moral in whatever I intuit I should do. Line up all the girls in the world before my door, rape them one at a time, kill their mothers, burn their bodies, enslave all the menfolk... if I intuit that it's right and can accomplish it, what's the problem?
But Rho, that can happen in any society, religious or secular. Persons who acquire power and the ability to inflict violence on others can claim to be carrying out God's will rather than acting on some atheistic preference. Tamerlane considered himself to be a devout Muslim, and yet he apparently delighted in having pyramids made of the severed heads of the people in the cities he sacked. In a little known chapter of American history, President William McKinley, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, declared that it was America's duty to "Christianize" the mostly Roman Catholic Philippines. Estimates are that about 200,000 Filipinos died in resisting American occupation. The Taiping Rebellion in mid 19th century China was led by a man who believed he was the brother of Jesus Christ, and in the decade or so in which the rebellion ran its course, some 20 million people died.
This is the fundamental conclusion of atheism - there is no way to prove that such a thing would be objectively wrong. Whatever human has the power makes the rules.
Proving that rape and murder is wrong, for example, is not the same thing as proving that the Earth orbits the sun rather than the sun goes around the Earth.
Certain acts are recognized as being acts of violence that are done to other persons. The spectrum of possibilities ranges from "It is always okay to inflict violence on another person" to "It is never acceptable to inflict violence on another person." No one wants to be on the receiving end of such violence. Therefore, the most universal standard that one can apply is that no one should ever be raped or murdered.
The trick of course is in promoting the universal standard. Both theistic and nontheistic value systems that embrace such universality can serve this purpose. Different methods work with different people. A Christian who opposes slavery, for example, will try to persuade other people by appealing to Christianity, while secularists will appeal to notions of human dignity. An Islamic feminist will try to appeal to fellow Muslims by presenting her arguments in the context of Islamic teachings.
The difference between us of course is that theistic morals purport to have a source external to humanity, whereas proponents of nontheistic morals believe that the source comes from within us based on our accumulated experiences. For you, the objective standard is one that has been set for us, whereas for me, the objective standard is the one that applies to everyone, such as "No one should be raped."
A lot of the conflict, it seems to me, between theists and non-theists, or between members of different religions, are matters of morality that do not involve acts of violence against persons but rather acts of mutual consent that are deemed to be in violation of the commandments of various religious faiths (the issue of abortion being a notable exception). For example, conservative Muslim societies where the "Virtue" police harass women in the streets who are not dressed in a sufficiently modest attire, the Muslim prohibition against the consumption of alcohol, the Roman Catholic position against the use of contraception even between married persons, the condemnation of most religions against consensual sex between adult men and women who are not married, or if Adam kisses Steve instead of Eve.
Okay, my lunch break is coming to an end, so apologies for ending this abruptly.
Yawn.
Morality is a crap idea anyway. It always implies some supernatural overriding code of conduct. Everybody falls into this trap with otherwise perfectly reasonable people trying to shoehorn moral propositions into genetically expressed evolutionary survival advantages (some sort of evolutionary pythagorianism).
There aren't any morals. There are just cultural aesthetics people tart up with divine authority or pseudo-scientific conjecture so they don't prolapse if you look at them too critically.
Ethics are social perceptual tools with a basis in cause and effect.
So, is the nasty old murderous Israelite coot raping captive orphan children immoral?
In a scabby wasteland Egypt and Babylon didn't care about, full of self important lying warlords and around 700-600 B.C.... probably not.
But before Rho puts notches on his bible belt and we all run out to volunteer at Falls Creek Baptist Camp this summer, guess what?
Israelite coot is still ethically wrong.
The Atheist proposition of rational ethics based on utility is not regional or temporal context dependent.
Ethics always win and most people who are acting in a fashion they describe as "moral" are acting ethically (rationally anticipating the consequences of their actions).
A North Korean guy who objects to cannibalism for the greater glory and greater waistline of Dear Leader is, in his context, acting immorally because his moral climate is dictated by a state religion.
Ethically, he is a rock star.
Rho is just exploiting a popular error where the terms are used interchangeably as a distraction. It isn't a position or even an argument, just an exercise.
Suckers bet. It's probably the first bullet point in the 'Why All Atheists are Sociopaths.' chapter of "Christan Apologetics for Dummies".
Hi everyone,
This thread is winding down, for a few reasons.
1) Y'all are going farther and farther afield. Yeah, that tends to happen when you make your best attempts to provide evidence for your assertions and then can't, over and over again.
2) You're not answering the questions about morality's basis, but are just repeating yourselves or moving the question back one more step. I don't really see a reason to continue battering you over and over again to actually answer the questions I'm asking, b/c it's clear you can't. Your worldview has no answer.
@159 Joe - irrelevant.
@160 ph42 - irrelevant and prejudicially ignorant.
@161 Joe and @163 SW - I don't say that b/c I'm interested in truth. If God had commanded rape, I'd say so and deal with it consistently. But since He didn't...
Plus you're apparently unfamiliar with comparing worldviews on the basis of internal critiques. I'd suggest you look into that.
@164-165 - irrelevant.
@166 ph42 - yet ANOTHER naked assertion. You're what's wrong with this thread.
@167 Kemanorel - yet ANOTHER naked assertion. You too are what's wrong with this thread.
@168 TK - so what's the answer, if this can happen anywhere?
And wouldn't it be more consistent to NOT criticise others' actions, no matter how much you dislike them, if saying "rape is wrong" is not the same kind of claim as "the Earth revolves around the sun"? Be consistent. Or else I'll point it out and make fun of you, which I've been doing (and been enjoying).
I believe that the word "irrelevant" is Rho's way of saying that God pleads the Fifth.
Tommy @155:
Doesn't quite work that way, Bossmanham. Evolution was an explanation offered upon observation and collection of data which caused people to ask "How did this come about?"
This is irrelevant to my point, and actually works to confirm it. It was claimed by Tyler that absence of evidence of God is positive evidence against His existence, which is just silly. Itâs neutral in telling us whether God exists or not. Without any evidence, one would need to remain agnostic. Atheism is a positive truth claim that requires justification.
You're claiming to have evidence, so quit bullshitting and put it on the fucking table. No more weasel words or whining, just put up or shut up. If you don't, we'll take that as an admission that you've got nothing, and you were lying when you said otherwise.
This is what we call emoting, people. It shows a weak mind and an inability to deal with arguments. Tell you what, when you give me a good reason to not believe in God, I will give you some of my reasons to believe in God.
Tyler @ 157:
Well, we can certainly do so. Our conclusion will no doubt be fallible and provisional, but it can still be justified. If we ever encounter evidence for god(s) existing, our conclusions can change.
Absence of evidence is not a good reason to postulate that something does not exist. For instance, physicists postulate the existence of things that, as of yet, there is no evidence for. You can only use a lack of evidence as a justified reason to reject belief in something, as I said, if you would expect to see more evidence for it, like the elephant flea example shows. You can also use the absence of evidence to justify withholding judgment on something. For instance, bigfoot is something that many people claim to have seen with fervent conviction. I donât know whether bigfoot exists or not, because I have no evidence either way. I am inclined to not believe in him because of different reasons, but I will withhold final judgment, as I do on a lot of things.
Likewise, one would not be justified in concluding âGod does not existâ based on a purported lack of evidence, as there is no reason to think we should see more evidence than we do if He existed.
And you would be correct to do so [reject evolution pre 19th century], from a methodological perspective
No, I wouldnât. What I would be justified in doing if I were some 18th century dude presented with the hypothesis of evolution would be to say âI really have no compelling reason to accept this theory, but I may withhold judgment since I have no reason to not believe it.â (I actually do have reasons I donât believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, but this is for argument sake).
Now, on the rape thing, since it seems to me, as a Christian, that God would not command rape, I would expect to see evidence in His revelation that He did command it if it were some sort of moral duty. Since there isnât such a command or allowance, and there is actually punishment applied to rape, then I shall conclude that my moral sense and the penalty are correct and rape is objectively wrong.
Regarding the evidence for God, put out or STFU.
Or else I'll point it out and make fun of you, which I've been doing (and been enjoying).
Oh no! Don't make fun of me! LOL! As you have probably learned, there is nothing you can do to unsettle me or reduce me to spittle-flecked rage like some of the other commenters here. :-)
Thank you, bossmanham, for admitting that you do not have any evidence for god, and were lying when you claimed you did. Want a good reason not to believe in god? The fact that even when a believer claims to have evidence, he will go to any lengths to avoid actually having to say what that evidence is, thus demonstrating that he is full of shit. If there actually was a god, it would have real effects on the real world. No such effects have been demonstrated, and even the people who claim to have observed them flee in terror when faced with the prospect of actual scrutiny for their claims. Just like you just did.
And it seems Rho considers pointing out the fact that what he is saying is blatantly false to be "irrelevant". More projection on his part.
Bossmanham, I am just checking in here real quick, so no time for substantive comments. But I just wanted to point out that the the "You're claiming evidence" quote was from Phantomreader42, not me, as you erroneously seem to imply, though I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you forgot to attribute the quote to him rather than to me. I just wanted it noted for the record.
OH, you want another good reason not to believe in god? The catholic church has been engaged in a decades-long criminal conspiracy to enable the rape of children, and protect the rapists from justice, all while publicly claiming to be official representatives of almighty god. And yet, the Vatican has not been sucked into the bowels of the earth, nor incinerated by lightning, nor crushed by a meteor. In fact, not one single person involved in this despicable enterprise has suffered the slightest rebuke from the divine. It took human justice and human outrage to even suggest that there might be a problem with what they've been doing. God did nothing at all. And this isn't an isolated incident. Countless religious groups, each claiming divine guidance, have been robbing, raping, murdering and torturing for centuries. God has done nothing. God has made no effort whatsoever to punish those misusing his name, nor to clarify his will, nor to defend his followers. If there is a god, it is so lazy and impotent as to be utterly meaningless. A god who does nothing is indistinguishable from no god at all. There is no reason to believe in something so useless and irrelevant. Belief in god is a waste of time.
put out or STFU
Ooooh, more emoting! Keep it flowing, y'all. I need a few more giggles today.
ph42, if you want evidence for God, which I doubt you really do, see my blog sidebar. 'Some good arguments for theism'
Jesse @ #173
Regarding the evidence for God, put out or STFU
I told you, I'd give you an argument for the existence God when I see one good argument against it. I tend to think belief in God is fairly properly basic, so I think the burden of proof begins w/ you.
phantom @ #175
Thank you, bossmanham, for admitting that you do not have any evidence for god,
That's weird, I don't remember doing that. Are you always this dishonest?
and were lying when you claimed you did
Really? What's your evidence? You don't want to think anything without empirical evidence now do you? Might lead to a belief in God. Uh oh, you're on your way.
The fact that even when a believer claims to have evidence, he will go to any lengths to avoid actually having to say what that evidence is, thus demonstrating that he is full of shit.
Or he is lol-ing at how intellectually inept the unbeliever's worldview is. Now, do you have a reason I shouldn't believe what is patently clear to me?
"I would expect to see evidence in His revelation that He did command it if it were some sort of moral duty. Since there isnât such a command or allowance, and there is actually punishment applied to rape, then I shall conclude that my moral sense and the penalty are correct and rape is objectively wrong."
I would expect to see evidence in His revelation that He did command genocide if it were some sort of moral duty. Since there is such a command, and there is actually a a reward of land and virgin hotties applied to genocide, then I shall conclude that my moral sense and the reward are correct and genocide is objectively good.
I love killfile. Rho just ended up there.
bossmanham @ #180:
And since you'd gouge out your own eyes before you'd dare admit to seeing such an argument, you've got another excuse to weasel out. What a transparent fraud you are. If the fact that your imaginary friend doesn't do a damn thing to stop crimes committed in its name, hasn't updated its holy book in centuries, hasn't spoken in public or appointed a prophet in over a millennium, and has never left a speck of evidence of itself behind anywhere on the fucking planet isn't enough reason not to believe, what could possibly convince you to drop this obvious dodge of yours?
bossmanham fleeing in terror from the burden of proof:
No, it doesn't. A properly basic belief needs to either be something true by definition (x=x, there's no such thing as dry water), evident to the senses (which your god isn't), or a self-evident axiom (which belief in god isn't as no two cultures have independently arrived at identical concepts of god, and the imagined deities are mutually exclusive). Your imaginary friend is no more a "properly basic belief" than Amaterasu, Bastet, Cthulhu, Dionysius, Enki, Frith, Ganesh, Hathor, Isis, John Frum, Kali, Loki, Marduk, Nerull, Osiris, Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Suzumiya Haruhi, Tiamat, Utu, Vecna, Wotan, Xochipilli, Yu Yevon, or Zeus.
Besides, YOU are the one who falsely claimed to have evidence to support your delusions. So either you have evidence, but you're withholding it so you can act like a petulant asshole, or you don't have evidence, and you're acting like a petulant asshole in a desperate (and failed) attempt to hide the fact that you're lying about it. Since you've offered not a speck of evidence for god and plenty of evidence that you're a petulant asshole, it looks like the latter. Again, put up or shut up. Your refusal to present your alleged evidence, and your whining about being asked, only makes it more obvious you're full of shit.
1) You are an idiot.
2) "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts
3) You did not put out after your grandiose implications, now STFU.
"Absence of evidence is not a good reason to postulate that something does not exist."
Absence of evidence is a perfectly sound reason to reject a hypothesis, especially if the hypothesis is binary in nature. In the case of the existence of god(s), I'm inferring a conditional probability using Bayesian reasoning of one hypothesis given the data. If the probability of that hypothesis is zero or close to zero, if I plug in its negation I get a value of one or close to one.
This can all change if the evidence changes. Let us formulate the evidence we observe a Markov chain of finite order. We can always observe something new, something that we didn't expect, etc., which means we would have to reformulate our predictive hypothesis on said Markov chain. This is the essence of science.
"Likewise, one would not be justified in concluding âGod does not existâ based on a purported lack of evidence, as there is no reason to think we should see more evidence than we do if He existed."
That's a separate argument. My argument only pertains to your contention that "there is no god" is a separate statement with its own burden of proof. I say, no, evaluating the evidence for the proposition that god(s) exist is the same as evaluating the evidence for said proposition's negation, from a probabilistic perspective. Whether that evidence is actually concordant with one proposition or the other is a separate issue.
"No, I wouldnât. What I would be justified in doing if I were some 18th century dude presented with the hypothesis of evolution would be to say âI really have no compelling reason to accept this theory, but I may withhold judgment since I have no reason to not believe it.â"
That would be what you would say if you haven't completed the process of hypothesis identification, which we can think as a certain iteration of a program on a universal Turing machine to compute the posterior probability of the hypothesis. Or, this could be said if the computation terminates and the result is ambiguous. Otherwise, what you're doing is equivalent to rejecting a hypothesis or affirming the null hypothesis.
Now, on the rape thing, since it seems to me, as a Christian, that God would not command rape, I would expect to see evidence in His revelation that He did command it if it were some sort of moral duty.
How about genocide then?
I know what Bossmanham's reply with be to all of these questions. God commanded it and what God commands is always objectively moral. Problem is, there's no way to validate the claim that God commanded anything. All we have are the words of the those who committed rape and genocide.
You can be "consistent" and "objective" (except when appealing to cultural relativism in the case of rape). You can be ever so pleased with yourself for being consistent and objective, and laugh at those disagree. However, many works of fiction are "internally consistent", and if one's objectivity and consistency are all based on a work of fiction, it's all pointless. Why anyone would want to base their internally consistent arguments on the words of ANE tribesmen is beyond me. Personally, I prefer more recent fiction.
Joe:
I know what Bossmanham's reply with be to all of these questions.
One thing that I give Bossmanham credit for is that he doesn't tell "atheists" what they think - unlike Rhology, who regularly pronounces on what "atheists" think with all the hubris one might expect from him.
Short version: Joe and others, please be more like Bossmanham than Rhology.
Any bets that Rhology will ask us to prove that the Canaanites didn't consent to being massacred?
@181 Joe,
I would expect to see evidence in His revelation that He did command genocide if it were some sort of moral duty.
It was a moral duty - to the people who received the command. But not everyone receives the same commands.
then I shall conclude that my moral sense and the reward are correct and genocide is objectively good.
You're right except for one thing - genocide is NOT licit for you. It was for the OT Israelites with respect to certain populations, but not all and not all the time. And Christians are never commanded to do anythg even close to genocide. So no, sorry, that won't work. Only on the basis of extreme biblical ignorance could someone make such a statement.
@184 Jesse,
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
That is really, really stupid.
1) Here's why.
2) And here's also why.
IOW, fail.
@186 Paul C,
How about genocide then?
On the level of abstract history, God has never commanded nor condoned rape, but He has a few times commanded genocide.
This is me being consistent again, and again, it's something I'd commend to the rest of you except bossmanham: To disobey the order to commit the specifically-commanded genocide would have been evil.
2189 Stephen Wells,
Any bets that Rhology will ask us to prove that the Canaanites didn't consent to being massacred?
What does that have to do with anything? My argument that the slaughter of the Canaanites was morally right has nothing to do with whether they gave consent.
Here's an idea - try giving some evidence when asked for it.
Rhology, you don't understand the nature of the conversation. I know how your moral system works, you've made it plain. I'm just happy to encourage you to make explicit statements, viz. that genocide was commanded by god and therefore morally right, which make plain just how much of a monster you are. Keep it right up.
Stephen,
For the zillionth time, please provide us all an objective moral standard by which we can know that your personal subjective appellation "monster", which implies a moral value judgment, is really bad. Rather than just distasteful to you, like brussels sprouts.
On the level of abstract history, God has never commanded nor condoned rape, but He has a few times commanded genocide.
It is of course true that God had never commanded genocide right up until the point where he commanded genocide; therefore to say that God would not command rape because God has not yet commanded rape is a non-argument.
This is me being consistent again, and again, it's something I'd commend to the rest of you except bossmanham: To disobey the order to commit the specifically-commanded genocide would have been evil.
Just to clarify for the viewers at home: you don't believe that any act has moral content in itself except insofar as God has commanded or prohibited it. So, for example, you don't believe genocide is itself evil.
therefore to say that God would not command rape because God has not yet commanded rape is a non-argument.
Failed internal critique, again. There will be no further revelation on par with Scripture until the Eschaton.
Not a bad try, though.
you don't believe that any act has moral content in itself except insofar as God has commanded or prohibited it.
Correct. Unlike y'all, I take Hume's Guillotine seriously.
Failed internal critique, again. There will be no further revelation on par with Scripture until the Eschaton.
It's far from a failed internal critique, since it wouldn't have to be revelation "on par with Scripture".
Personally I find it funny that you say things like "rape is wrong" when you don't actually believe that rape is wrong.
since it wouldn't have to be revelation "on par with Scripture".
This is asking alot from an atheist, but I invite you to show how any revelation from God wouldn't be the equal of Scripture in authority and truthfulness.
"rape is wrong" when you don't actually believe that rape is wrong.
Sure it is, and sure I do. It's wrong b/c God has said it's wrong. This is why I don't have a lot of confidence in your ability to provide a valid internal critique. Prove me wrong.
"It was a moral duty - to the people who received the command. But not everyone receives the same commands."
Oh, I understand. Sometimes genocide is moral and sometimes it's not. It's a matter of whether or not you feel "commanded".
This is asking alot from an atheist, but I invite you to show how any revelation from God wouldn't be the equal of Scripture in authority and truthfulness.
You said "There will be no further revelation on par with Scripture until the Eschaton" (my emphasis added), which means that there also exists revelation that is not on par with Scripture. If there was to be no further revelation at all, then presumably you would have said that.
If you want to retroactively make the argument that there will be no further revelation at all, then I'll need you to show it rather than assert it. Full biblical citations, obviously! Although I'm not sure why you'd want to prove that God no longer acts in the world.
Also, you might want to read up on what constitutes revelation from God, since Christian theology is fairly clear that Scripture is not the only source of revelation.
Sure it is, and sure I do. It's wrong b/c God has said it's wrong.
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you cited the Bible verse which states that rape is wrong. Could you point me to it please?
"I'm sorry, I missed the part where you cited the Bible verse which states that rape is wrong. Could you point me to it please?"
That would be the one that says that butchers can discard their war booty if the booty displeases. No, wait, that can't be right.
Paul C, rape falls under sex outside of marriage, and sexual immorality is condemned all over the place.
Here you go.
The rest of the comments since my last comment here merit no response.
Ta ta!
Paul C, rape falls under sex outside of marriage, and sexual immorality is condemned all over the place.
How can rape fall under sex outside of marriage when it is possible to rape somebody you are married to?
If Rho says that you can't rape your wife, then he contradicts himself, because earlier, he clearly stated that rape was sex "under duress". There were no exceptions for marriage.
Obviously, even an married woman can be forced by her husband to have sex "under duress". Married woman can be raped by their husbands, so saying that "rape falls under sex outside of marriage" isn't going to take into account or condemn
Ooops, last bit was cut off.
Married woman can be raped by their husbands, so saying that "rape falls under sex outside of marriage" isn't going to take into account or condemn...all cases of rape. Wife rape is still ok.
Rho: Ta, ta.
Joe: Promises, promises.
Ooops, last bit was cut off.
Which, of course, is the response of some wives when they are raped by their husbands. The Lorena Bobbitt method!
If the function of an internal critique is to confront the inherently contradictory elements of the naturalist unbeliever's worldview in order to lead him to enlightenment through a process of introducing evangelical truisms as those contradictions(stated in his own terms) create successive vacuums....aren't you failing here?
Isn't the origin of your failure your pride?
Can you be qualified to conduct an internal critique without humility and therefore clothed in sin?
It is certainly the case that those who you would try to lead through the internal critique of their naturalistic world view, as an evangelical mandate, are under no obligation to respect or even refrain from ridicule. You however are not entitled to, nor can you lead others to truth by such means.
At what point in an internal critique is it appropriate for an evangelical Christian to be snide, self congratulatory, accusatory or make dictatorial demands?
This is the patent antithesis of a Christian's God given obligations to all proselytes.
I can say that your incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule has hardened my heart and placed stones within my soul to speed my descent to perdition.
To what extent are you prepared to hold yourself responsible for souls lost because your self love and affectations have stood between the unsaved and a more worthy advocate for Christ's salvation.
A proper admonition to a tent maker such as yourself might be "every man to your tents, O Israel: and now, David, see to thine own house. So all Israel went to their tents."
P.S. Don't panic. When you get to hell, look me up. I'll be in middle management. We can drop by the Second Circle for Pomegranate Daiquiris with Cleopatra VII and Billie Holiday. I'll bring the Tortuga rum and Chesterfield Kings (they satisfy).
So we've established that Rho doesn't think that rape can occur inside a marriage, thinks genocide is OK if you think God told you to, and doesn't think that inflicting pain and suffering on other people is morally bad unless God specifically said so.
Keep 'em coming, Rho. It's rare to meet such an honest sociopath.
@201 Paul C,
How can rape fall under sex outside of marriage when it is possible to rape somebody you are married to?
1) If it's rape of someone you're not married to, then it would fall under that. (True, I didn't think of intramarriage rape.)
2) That would be a fine question if today we didn't have the NT but just the OT, but we do have the NT which gives many guidelines about treating gently one's wife.
3) You'd need to prove that the possibility of intramarriage rape isn't a product of anachronistic judgment on your part.
@202 Joe,
If Rho says that you can't rape your wife, then he contradicts himself, because earlier, he clearly stated that rape was sex "under duress". There were no exceptions for marriage.
I didn't say you can't. Thanks!
Married woman can be raped by their husbands
Prove it. Moreover, prove that's a category that women in Deuteronomy times would have understood and accepted.
Yeah, you're not going to be able to. Yet another fail. Ta ta yourself.
@205 Prometheus,
If the function of an internal critique is to confront the inherently contradictory elements of the naturalist unbeliever's worldview in order to lead him to enlightenment through a process of introducing evangelical truisms as those contradictions(stated in his own terms) create successive vacuums....aren't you failing here?
An internal critique can be performed on anyone's worldview.
I've been insisting that y'all perform a valid internal critique against my position, but you haven't been.
Can you be qualified to conduct an internal critique without humility and therefore clothed in sin?
I have no idea what this means.
I can say that your incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule has hardened my heart
OK. Bummer.
Needless to say, I don't take this kind of patronising attitude seriously. And I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in "incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule". Go ahead.
The funny thing is, every time I ask ppl to quote me doing that, they fade into the night, wordless.
@206 Stephen Wells,
we've established that Rho doesn't think that rape can occur inside a marriage
Really? Where?
thinks genocide is OK if you think God told you to
Now please prove that's a bad thing. You keep repeating yourself.
doesn't think that inflicting pain and suffering on other people is morally bad unless God specifically said so.
No, that is not a good restatement of my position.
Besides, when are you going to prove that these are bad things? How many times do I have to ask?
ROFL. You don't even have to respond to this. Just ROFL.
Rho claims that rape is covered by laws on sex outside marriage. Rho wants to know where he claimed that rape can't occur within marriage. Rho is not very bright and does not understand what an "implication" is.
That would be a fine question if today we didn't have the NT but just the OT, but we do have the NT which gives many guidelines about treating gently one's wife.
How is that relevant to rape, which is by definition not treating one's wife gently? The question stands.
3) You'd need to prove that the possibility of intramarriage rape isn't a product of anachronistic judgment on your part.
Intramarriage rape has nothing to do with my judgement, since it's a simple description of events: a husband forces a wife to have sex against her wishes. So this is irrelevant.
"I've been insisting that y'all perform a valid internal critique against my position, but you haven't been."
That might be because internal critique is not recognized as having validity outside of a small division of Christian Apologetics and the few moldy hold outs of the most contorted and distended variations of Hegelian theory frontline evangelicals stole it from in the firstplace you intellectual infant.
We aren't christian apologists.
Bugger off. We don't have to play with your imaginary ball in your mom's yard according to your rules.
insisting that you have a right to make this kind of petulant demand is....well....
" I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in "incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule". Go ahead."
Res ipsa loquitur you insufferable clown.
So biblical morals are anachronistic? Agreed.
@209 Stephen Wells,
Rho wants to know where your evidence is.
@210 Paul C,
a husband forces a wife to have sex against her wishes
It's quite relevant - to what extent does "against her wishes" come into play in the time, with the man and the woman? Does that concept even really exist for the woman, has she ever thought of it?
@211 Prometheus,
That might be because internal critique is not recognized as having validity outside of a small division of Christian Apologetics
Oooohhhh, I forgot you measure truth by nose-counting. My mistake.
Tell you what, I'll go ahead and perform an external critique on atheism. Ready? God says He exists, so He exists. Atheism is irrational. Booyah, we're done here.
Now please let me know how that furthers conversation.
" I, as always, invite you to quote me engaging in "incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule". Go ahead."
Res ipsa loquitur you insufferable clown.
So asking for evidence of a charge against me is "incessant preening, self promotion and flaccid attempts to hold the commentators up to ridicule". Gotcha, thanks.
I'm starting to think that someone who
1) disagrees with you, and
2) thinks they're right and you're wrong
suffices for you to be assigned the label "preening and self-promotion".
BTW, isn't "you insufferable clown" an attempt to hold me up to ridicule? Just wondering.
@212 Vicklund,
So biblical morals are anachronistic?
You were making your side look much less foolish when you were silent.
This question is only relevant if biblical morals are anachronistic. In fact, Rho's whole line of inquiry is only valid if his God is a moral relativist or no longer exists.
"BTW, isn't "you insufferable clown" an attempt to hold me up to ridicule? Just wondering."
Try reading for content. You will wonder less.
Again, I'm not proselytizing and I'm not attempting to correspond to some sort of naturalist apologetic stolen by a collection of douchebags who mangled up pre-mangled Adorno negative dialectics.
I can ridicule you all I want because:
1. you invite ridicule.
2. I don't want to sell you my belief system.
Quit wasting your time and go to graduate school.
No converts here.
So you agree, a woman can be raped by her husband.
Or maybe you dont.
BTW, clearly all your protestations in the past 100 posts show how much you dont care that we think you are morally repugnant.
Dear, sweet Rho. I knew that you couldn't stay a way for long. You're just like herpes! And, oh my, I can't seem to find the acyclovir.
It's quite relevant - to what extent does "against her wishes" come into play in the time, with the man and the woman? Does that concept even really exist for the woman, has she ever thought of it?
Unless you think that before the 20th century women didn't have any mental processes, then yes, the concept exists for the woman and yes, she has thought of it. I am however interested to know on what basis you think that a man killing your family, holding a blade to your throat and violently raping you is ever something that could be considered in line with somebody's wishes, whether today or three thousand years ago.
a man killing your family, holding a blade to your throat and violently raping you is ever something that could be considered in line with somebody's wishes
Yes, that would be hard to see.
1) Yet some people pay big money for that kind of thing. Hey, man, if you get off on it...
2) Are you saying that's the case of Deut 21, or are you asking some random and irrelevant question? If the former, where's the evidence? I've been asking that this entire thread; maybe you have some that the others missed.
Are you seriously confusing rape with "rape fantasy?" Do you really have to have the difference spelled out for you?
Nah, hes just reaching for straws: Anything he can use to confuse, misdirect or obfuscate.
Isn't it amusing that Rho thinks he can just assert that anything God says is good- without even establishing that there is a god, or that it ever said anything, or that there's any ground for believing in its goodness- but then demands evidence for the proposition that "suffering is bad", or that "rape often occurs during conquests"?
Incidentally, Rho, I already told you on what grounds I consider things to be bad. You disagree because you don't share my moral principles; big whoop. My moral principles can be shared by all rational consistent people who don't like suffering, whereas yours can only be shared by those who share your belief that an ancient myth is true. I think this makes my principles superior. You disagree, big whoop.
Yet some people pay big money for that kind of thing.
Please cite a single example of a woman paying somebody to kill their family and rape them at knifepoint. Also note that if they were paying for somebody to rape them, then it isn't rape because they have given their consent. Good luck.
2) Are you saying that's the case of Deut 21, or are you asking some random and irrelevant question?
Neither. I was answering your question of whether the concept of "against her wishes" can be said to be "anachronistic", and the answer is "no".
Please cite a single example of a woman paying somebody to kill their family and rape them at knifepoint
I was referring to fantasies (some acted out) among SMists, of violent "oooh, force me!" style.
I was answering your question of whether the concept of "against her wishes" can be said to be "anachronistic", and the answer is "no".
By citing something that has no connection to the biblical psg under discussion. OK.
Has nothing to do with real rape, and bringing up "rape fantasy" has no purpose here. Stick to the issues at hand.
I was referring to fantasies (some acted out) among SMists, of violent "oooh, force me!" style.
Then your argument is irrelevant to discussions about actual rape.
By citing something that has no connection to the biblical psg under discussion. OK.
This is also irrelevant, since you were asking a general question about whether the concept of intramarriage rape is anachronistic, to which the answer is no.