Sexual Violence Against Women Promoted in Scripture

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How can you say morals have changed? Does that mean sexual violations against women were not immoral back in the time of Moses, but are today? Is the God you hold to be the creator of the universe two faced, did he have one set of morals for Bronze Age man and another set for now? In my book raping women, and slaughtering women and children is always WRONG!

That's exactly correct. God is shown as actively participating in the lives of Israel. He spoke through prophets. He caused famines (2 Sam 21:1). Why was he silent about the moral atrocities recorded in the Bible? How can we think that the Bible is a moral guide if it doesn't speak out against grossly immoral activities?

The problem with the stories you presented is not the fact that men and women took matters into their own hands, but the fact that they were neither condemned, nor reprimanded for doing such things.

Like the case in Judges 19, nary a word was spoken against the man who gave his woman to be raped to death!

Also, in the case of Lot offering his daughters to be raped by the mob, not a single solitary word was uttered against his atrocious behavior, yet when Lots wife looked back she was turned into a pillar of salt!

Even with the horrible behavior of Sarah sending Hagar away, she was never reprimanded for that, yet when she doubted God it was a horrible thing.

Indeed - Lot is repeatedly called "righteous" even though he offered his daughters to be raped and then impregnated both of them himself!

It seems clear to me that the Bible could say ANYTHING and it would be declared "righteous" by those who think it is the Word of God.

My purpose has never been to paint men as bad and women as good, rather I have been trying to show that by the very nature of how the Bible was written it shows that it is the work of men. The bias towards men and against women is so great in Scripture, that it is utterly impossible for it to have been inspired by the God it claims to have created the universe.

The laws and rules given in the Bible which are claimed to be from God, parallel far to closely with the rules and laws in all societies governed by men to not raise some eyebrows as to their origin.

Apparently, that needs to be repeated yet again, since no one seems willing to deal with what you are saying. So here it is:

Rose is trying to show that the male bias in the Bible shows it was written by men and not God. Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't anyone address her point?

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Gil

Howdy David

Gil > As you mentioned earlier that Christianity has been fragmented into many hundreds of denominations, each with there own doctrines since the split from Catholicism , which essential doctrines do you refer to?
As they all differ in one respect or another.

Gil

I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom. I have much in common with a lot of other Christian denominations but there is usually one point or more of disagreement I have with them.

Some of the points of disagreement I have are the following:

1. Death and Hell
2. The nature of Jesus
3. The Kingdom of God on earth
4. The Devil and Satan
5. Baptism

That is enough to be going on with.

Regards
David

[David M]

Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

I think we need to clear up the reason for the use of the word "rape" in relation to the distribution of the 32,000 virgins. Your comment that you "agree that some rape could have taken place" indicates we are still talking past each other. We are not talking about some incidental acts of rape that could have happened here or there between some soldiers and some captive women. We are talking about God sanctioning the capture of virgins and their distribution to the soldiers to be wives. The Torah states that the soldiers could have sex with the virgins and then discard them if they "found no delight" in them. Is there any reason to think that the virgins who just witnessed the murder of everyone they loved would willingly have had sex with the soldiers who did it? THIS IS WHY IT IS CALLED RAPE. Do you agree? If not, why not? Is there any reason we should think that those captured virgins would willingly bear children to the very people who murdered everyone they loved? We need to find some agreement on this basic point.

I do not think these matters are as black or white as you make out. If we could go back and interview the virgins at the time they were taken captive or after they had assimilated into the culture of the Israelites, we might know better about their feelings and what they thought of events. All I have tried to do is present a different point of view that is less categorical than you are stating. It was not mass rape in the normal sense we see when soldiers enter villages and immediately rape the women. I have answered why I consider this was not mass rape and explained how the phrase "having no delight in her" could be more than sexual reasons and even if you only consider the sexual context, you do not know how widespread this was. Allowance was made for that eventuality. That is why I say you are and Rose are partly right and that your are not totally correct. I think we have to move on.

Your reference to "the morals of the time which were clearly different from the morals of you and me" indicates another fundamental misunderstanding. The immoral actions of individuals recorded in the Bible are completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing. We are talking about the MORALS OF GOD as presented in the Bible. The Bible presents God as commanding, participating in, and tacitly approving immoral activities such as genocide, kidnapping, and rape (Numbers 31, Judges 19-21). These are the issues.

Each case you cite needs to be discussed on its own merits.

This too is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. We are not talking about immoral actions of humans in the Bible. We are talking about the things that God commanded, instituted in his law, and tacitly approved by being silent.

If you think it is irrelevant, OK. I am trying to add relevancy to Rose's thread.

This conversation would be a lot easier if we could at least agree upon the points we are discussing

Exactly.

Again, the problem is not that some men were immoral. The problem is that God actively participated in the immorality. Case in point - God himself enabled the tribes to kill every man, woman, and child of the Benjaminites, except for the 600 soldiers who then needed wives. But the tribes had agreed not to give any other their daughters for wives to Benjamin, so they killed every man, woman, and child of Jabeshgilead and kidnapped 400 virgins. But that wasn't enough, so the kidnapped another 200 that were on the way to celebrate a festival of the LORD! And God was there participating in all of this, sometimes directly and other times tacitly. But it all reflects on the morality of God.

Again, I suggest you start a specific thread on the morality of God. You may need to deal with one aspect at a time, or we will get bogged down with too many side trails.

Again, the fact that folks took matters in their own hands has nothing to do with any of the moral issues we are discussing. We are talking about the morality that is attributed to God.

Start another thread then, because I am dealing with the topic of which the example I have given is relevant. I would not have wasted my time otherwise.

That's all fine. But it has nothing to do with the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible. That is the issue. Why have you not answered my last post explaining all this. I fell like you are avoiding the facts I have presented.

I think I have answered elsewhere, we keep going over the same ground. As I said above, I do not think I have had all my questions answered, but that does not matter, there will be opportunity again as these matters come up again.

Who knows? And since no one knows, no one should try to build a case on ignorance.

Fair comment, who does know? That is why I say you cannot be so categorical in your statments.

Again, this shows that you are missing the point. We are not talking about the morality of humans.

But this is relevant to this thread dealing with Violence in the Bible towards women. You will have to start a separate thread if you want to deal exclusively with the morality of God.

I would be very interested in you would answer my previous post

I thought I had. I have not always had my questions answered. There are too many threads going on with the same issues being introduced. In some of them I expressed by understanding. I am now addressing comments made by Rose in this thread. I am trying to stay on topic[/QUOTE]

Maybe I have to abandon this thread and concentrate on another one. I am already contributing to some of Rose's other threads.

I will chat with you in another thread.

All the best

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I do not think these matters are as black or white as you make out. If we could go back and interview the virgins at the time they were taken captive or after they had assimilated into the culture of the Israelites, we might know better about their feelings and what they thought of events. All I have tried to do is present a different point of view that is less categorical than you are stating. It was not mass rape in the normal sense we see when soldiers enter villages and immediately rape the women. I have answered why I consider this was not mass rape and explained how the phrase "having no delight in her" could be more than sexual reasons and even if you only consider the sexual context, you do not know how widespread this was. Allowance was made for that eventuality. That is why I say you are and Rose are partly right and that your are not totally correct. I think we have to move on.

Good morning David,

I was only trying to bring the conversation into focus. Neither Rose nor I have ever suggested that anything like a "mass rape" occurred, so why are you writing post after post refuting something that was never said?

Now as you mentioned in a previous post, "human nature" has not changed in thousands of years, so I can state quite categorically that the kidnapped virgins who witnessed the total annihilation of their people by the Israelites would not willingly have sex with them and bear their children! Indeed, this is so fundamental to human nature I am mystified why I need to repeat it so many times.

And a big post I wrote answering many of your points has itself remained unanswered (Post #42).

If you think it is irrelevant, OK. I am trying to add relevancy to Rose's thread.

Relevancy is fine. But your comments seemed more designed to avoid the big issues and hide them under many words. I say this because you have not really dealt with the central points that have been presented over and over again.

Again, I suggest you start a specific thread on the morality of God. You may need to deal with one aspect at a time, or we will get bogged down with too many side trails.

When Rose says that the Bible promotes sexual violence against women, she is talking about the Bible as a book supposedly inspired by God. She is not talking about the fact that it records some crimes against women committed by some individuals. This should be totally obvious because if the Bible really were written by God, then it could record the same crimes against women but then it would also CORRECT THEM and declare them to be wrong! Get it??? If the Bible were written by God, it could record all the wicked things that humans did, and then explain in no uncertain terms why those wicked things are wrong. But that's not what we see in the Bible, is it? Many wicked things are tacitly approved by God, and other wicked things are explicitly commanded.

I think I have answered elsewhere, we keep going over the same ground. As I said above, I do not think I have had all my questions answered, but that does not matter, there will be opportunity again as these matters come up again.

If I have failed to answer a question, you should bring my attention to it. That's why I've been trying to do. For example, my previous post received no answer at all. And you have claimed that you answered the rape of the 32,000 virgins but I don't think that is accurate at all because you were "refuting" something that I never said! Namely, that there was a "mass rape" - that's never been my point.

Who knows? And since no one knows, no one should try to build a case on ignorance.

Fair comment, who does know? That is why I say you cannot be so categorical in your statments.

I'm not "categorical" about everything. My "categorical" comments refer to things that we can know, such as the fact that no women would willingly bear children to the men that murdered everyone she ever loved.

Again, this shows that you are missing the point. We are not talking about the morality of humans.

But this is relevant to this thread dealing with Violence in the Bible towards women. You will have to start a separate thread if you want to deal exclusively with the morality of God.

Yes, it's is relevant in a tangential sort of way. But as explained above, the problem is not that the Bible records immoral actions of some humans, but rather that God often seems to tacitly approve, or even command, some of those actions. That's the only issue of any importance. If the Bible recorded the same immorality of humans but showed that God corrected and admonished them, then there would be no problem, would there?

I would be very interested in you would answer my previous post

I thought I had. I have not always had my questions answered. There are too many threads going on with the same issues being introduced. In some of them I expressed by understanding. I am now addressing comments made by Rose in this thread. I am trying to stay on topic

I was talking about Post #42 - you never answered that one.

I know there are lot's of threads on this topic right now, and things can get a little mixed up.

Maybe I have to abandon this thread and concentrate on another one. I am already contributing to some of Rose's other threads.

I will chat with you in another thread.

All the best

David

Sounds good.

All the very best to you too,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom. I have much in common with a lot of other Christian denominations but there is usually one point or more of disagreement I have with them.

Some of the points of disagreement I have are the following:

1. Death and Hell
2. The nature of Jesus
3. The Kingdom of God on earth
4. The Devil and Satan
5. Baptism

That is enough to be going on with.

Regards
David

Wow - that's quite a list for someone who says "I won't go into all the doctrines that I differ on from mainstream Christendom."

What's left? The only point of agreement seems to be that the Bible is the Word of God, but then everyone disagrees about almost everything it says! That pretty much says it all. The Bible is worthless as a guide. Everyone just makes up whatever they want. The differences are as stark as night and day. Some say Jesus is God, others so no. Some say baptism in water is necessary for salvation, others say no. And on it goes ... The Holey Babel of Contrary Doctrines.

[CWH]

[QUOTE]

I know I wouldn't offer up my daughters to be raped by an angry mob! So, are you saying that the life of a man of importance is worth more than a woman's life? Sure sounds that way...

Supposed President Obama visited your house and the mob outside demanded and forcing themselves to have sex with him, would you do a very heroic act by offering yourself, children and husband as a last resort so as to distract them and provide time for your beloved President to escape or be rescued? You know very well they are not interested in all the "holes" except Obama's so as to create world's headline, "President Obama raped by mobs!". They will most likely leave you and your family unharmed.

You said the men of Sodom weren't interested in Lots daughters, well what about the case in Judges 19 where the master of the house gave his concubine to the angry mob of men who wanted his male house guest, yet they still took the woman and raped her to death! And did we read even one word of condemnation or reprimand given to the man who threw his woman out to be raped to death? NO!

When we read Judge 19, the concubine was unfaithful to the husband and thus by right deserved death in those days but the husband did not do that out of mercy. Perhaps the husband still harbored that rage in him and eventually decided as a last resort to punish the concubine by throwing her out to the mob to be raped and at the same time saved all the rest. This is a very heroic act on the part of the concubine and perhaps the husband (which I believe God will pardon her sin and her husband) but unfortunately resulted in her death. Her death brought a good thing and that was the destruction of all the evil-doers of that town. Would you like to live in a town whereby the main pre-occupation of the residents is sex, sex, sex and nothing but perverse sex?
What would you do if you are faced with such a serious situation? Have one raped as a last resort to save all others or get all be raped?

Judge 19:
Now a Levite who lived in a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim took a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah. 2 But she was unfaithful to him. She left him and went back to her parents’ home in Bethlehem, Judah. After she had been there four months, 3 her husband went to her to persuade her to return. He had with him his servant and two donkeys. She took him into her parents’ home, and when her father saw him, he gladly welcomed him. 4 His father-in-law, the woman’s father, prevailed on him to stay; so he remained with him three days, eating and drinking, and sleeping there.

If a man cannot find a woman who wants to be his wife then he must go childless, just as a woman who could not find a husband would have to go childless. No person EVER has a right to force themselves on another just because they want children!

Fine, but how about taking common accepted ancient cultures and context at those times....forced marriages, child marriages, arranged marriages, bride kidnapping, are'nt those the same as forcing themselves on another to want children? In ancient Jewish custom, all grown up children are expected to get married.

I

t doesn't matter if the woman screamed or not, the man still raped her. She had no say in the matter of marriage, why do you think the man paid her father 50 shekels, because she was the property of her father and because the man raped her, her value decreased to nothing! Instead of punishing the man physically the father wanted money for his daughter that the rapist just devalued. Back in those time 50 shekels of silver was a lot of money. In Gen.27:38 Josephs brothers sold him for 30 shekels silver, so I guess a human life was worth between 30-50 shekels.

My question srtill stands, why didn't she scream or resisted like the other case? Silence means consent. The man paid 50 shekiels as dowry (in fact that was the sum of a marriage dowry in those days) to a proposed marriage which the father accepted. The father and the girl could have rejected that 50 shekiels if they wanted to and the man would have been stoned to death. What if the father was rich and doesn't need the money or what happened if the man cannot afford to pay? Please see wiki on Ancient Jewish marriages:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life...Marriage.shtml

Excerpt:
The last step in the reform of the mohar institution was made by Simeon ben Shatach, head of the Pharisees, who were the ruling party in the state during the reign of the Maccabean queen, Salome Alexandra (76-67 B.C.E.). He declared that the mohar, which was ordinarily 200 silver dinars (50 shekels) for a girl, and 100 for a widow, should merely be written in the ketubah, the marriage deed, as a lien of the wife on the estate of her husband, to be paid to her only if he divorced her, or at his death!

What does the disgusting customs of primitive people have to do with God commanding the rape of women in the Bible. Just because men in Vietnam or China have no regard for a woman's human rights means nothing. You continue to act like women are just property for men to have sex with and have children by.

I quoted all the disgusting customs of primitive people to show that they have nothing to do with disregard for women rights but that it is based on acceptable sexual and social norms. They may looked like rapes but they are not. I even know from wiki of a primitive tribe in ?Africa in which "rape" was a sexual norm before marriage and from another in which adolescent males were allowed to have sex with matured women prior to their marriages in order to gain sexual experience.

Well, if you want to close your eyes to what the Bible really says there is nothing I can do about it. It is just more proof of how the Bible corrupts peoples morals and hardens their hearts. If you don't think raping women is sexual violence there is nothing I can do to help you, you are a lost soul.

Same as I would say to you that if you want to disregard or ignore the sexual norms and practices of ancient people of the Middle East and declare some of those practices as rapes is up to you.

Are human morals better than God's? Absolutely! My morals are a hundred times better than what is presented in the Bible as God's morals!

Yes, human morals are better than God ... Free sex, promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, lesbianism, pornography, nudity, molest, rape, divorce, prostituition, abortion, pedophilia, bestiality, wife swapping etc. etc. If you can't see these happenings, I am afraid you are also a lost soul.


God Blessed.

[David M]

Hey there David,

You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.

I am not going to believe some parts of the Bible and not other parts once I have come to trust it and believe the message to be true.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I accept this as true statement, not that this is proof by itself.

If folks must begin by believing the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" before they can find explanations for the blatant immorality and primitive brutality of Yahweh, then I see no hope for your religion. It's time to admit that secular morality greatly surpasses that of the Bible

.
It is not as you paint the picture. Secular morality has nothing to boast about and is as low as it is possible to get. I have posted something about this to Rose elsewhere.

Yes, everyone knows that Jesus is a lot nicer than Yahweh, but that's not the point. We can't have Yahweh going about acting like a Bronze age tribal war god who commands genocide and the capture of virgins and all that! It's just not right! It is immoral. You explanation that things were "far different" back then is the most absurd thing a Christian could ever say in this context because the primary Christian assertion is that GOD DOESN'T CHANGE and MORALITY DOES NOT CHANGE! This is what your dogma about the Bible does to you. It forces you to be completely inconsistent and to say things that directly contradict the primary teachings of Christianity. It's so very strange that you don't see this when you are writing your posts and that I need to point it out to you. This is what happens when you try to defend something that is logically incoherent

.
I do not see the morality of God changing, It is the same from Gensis to Revelation. I am amazed that you cannot see it. God's judgement will come on the earth again, millions or reprobates will be killed, what are you going to say then?

Neither you nor I have any other kind of "reasoning" than "human reasoning." Or what? Can you show me some other form? I think not. It is a meaningless cliche Christians use when their arguments have been defeated by logic and facts

.
Yes we reasoning humanly, but it is the substance on which we base our reasoning that is different.

I never said that God's thoughts were not superior to mine. I said that the immoral things in the Bible attributed to God cannot be accurate representations of God's thoughts. That's a very different thing

God has revealed Himself in the Bible. What humans attribute to God might not be what God attributes to himself. It is faulty human reasoning to say that God is immoral.

I am more than prepared to "look at the lessons." I hope you don't quit, because very few Christians are willing to deal with what the Bible actually says.

I will keep bashing away, but I do not want to keep repeating myself as I feel I am doing with so many threads dealing with this same topic of the morality of God and the 32,000 virgins

But I understand why you might want to quit. The case against the morality of Yahweh appears to be airtight

.
It is not airtight, that is your conclusion. It could be equally airtight but opposit to what you say.

Young Earth Creationism? You've got to be kidding!

I am not kidding, but then you are defining me as a Young Earth Creationist withoutfully knowing what I believe.

I'm not intransigent at all. I simply look and speak what I see. Your suggestion that the woman might have been allowed to say "no" and that this would have been the reason for finding "no delight" in her is a good attempt to force the text to fit modern sensibilities. Unfortunately, we know it is false because the text speaks of the lack of delight coming after they had sex! And we know this is true because the reason he had to let her go without selling her was because he had "HUMBLED" her, which means he had sex with her. Now these are the most basic facts that any fair-minded well-informed Bible student would know. How is it possible that you failed to see what is plainly written? The answer is simple. You have been blinded by your false dogma of Biblical inerrancy. You cannot accurately interpret anything in the Bible if it appears to contradict your dogma. The fact that you could make that suggestion shows that you are trying to "fix" the Bible because you see that it is teaching immorality. Think of what this means! It proves that your morals are higher than those of the Bible, and that rather than being a guide to morality, your dogma of Biblical inerrancy is corrupting your mind and causing you to pervert judgment! This is the inevitable consequence of holding a false doctrine about the Bible. It corrupts both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.

God's morals are higher than yours. I wonder how you would handle the situation? You are powerless to do anything therefore you are not in position to say what God should have done. You are using flawed human reasoning.

I was asking about your view of hell. You rejected the idea that God would torment sinners forever, so I assumed you were an annihilationist. What is your view of the eternal destiny of unbelievers?

They simply die and that is the end.

I see no reason for any "impasse" - I am open to anything that can be established with logic and facts, as well as speculative intuitions and everything

.
Ok we can keep on chatting. Sorry I have had to rush this reply I have to go out for the day. Will be back on the forum this evening.

Great chatting!

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there David,

You position makes no sense to me at all. We can discuss the Bible without making any unfounded and ill-defined assumptions like "it is the inspired word of God." What does that even mean? Is it true for the Catholic Bible? Is it true for the Greek Orthodox Bible? If not, why not? And what about the demonstrable errors in transmission? We don't even know what the original documents said in some cases. And besides all that, folks who totally agree that the Bible is the "inspired Word of God" often fail to come to any kind of agreement of what it really means.

I am not going to believe some parts of the Bible and not other parts once I have come to trust it and believe the message to be true.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: I accept this as true statement, not that this is proof by itself.

Hey there David,

I appreciate your comments, but I think there are two fundamental logical flaws in your answer. First, quoting that verse as proof that Scripture is inspired is circular reasoning, technically known as Petitio Principii (Begging the Question). Second, it is absurd to claim that all of something is true merely because part of it is true. For example, anyone can say 1 + 1 = 2. Does that mean that all their words are true? Of course not.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?

And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

It is not as you paint the picture. Secular morality has nothing to boast about and is as low as it is possible to get. I have posted something about this to Rose elsewhere.

You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.

I do not see the morality of God changing, It is the same from Gensis to Revelation. I am amazed that you cannot see it. God's judgement will come on the earth again, millions or reprobates will be killed, what are you going to say then?

And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.

You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?

The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."

Yes we reasoning humanly, but it is the substance on which we base our reasoning that is different.

That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.

God has revealed Himself in the Bible. What humans attribute to God might not be what God attributes to himself. It is faulty human reasoning to say that God is immoral.

I am not talking about what we humans attribute to God. I am talking about what the BIBLE attributes to God. How is it possible that you fail to understand this? I've repeated it a million times already.

I will keep bashing away, but I do not want to keep repeating myself as I feel I am doing with so many threads dealing with this same topic of the morality of God and the 32,000 virgins

Great!

But I understand why you might want to quit. The case against the morality of Yahweh appears to be airtight

It is not airtight, that is your conclusion. It could be equally airtight but opposit to what you say.

I hope you stick around until we get this point settled.

I am not kidding, but then you are defining me as a Young Earth Creationist withoutfully knowing what I believe.

I got the impression that you were defining yourself as a YEC in your comment.

God's morals are higher than yours. I wonder how you would handle the situation? You are powerless to do anything therefore you are not in position to say what God should have done. You are using flawed human reasoning.

No, they are not. God's morals, as presented in the Bible, are abominable.

And I am not powerless. Sure, my power is much less than "omnipotent" but then again, so is the power of the God you are trying to defend, else he would be here defending himself! Or better, he would have written a book that didn't make him look like a primitive Bronze age tribal war god!

I was asking about your view of hell. You rejected the idea that God would torment sinners forever, so I assumed you were an annihilationist. What is your view of the eternal destiny of unbelievers?

They simply die and that is the end.

And that's the meaning of the religious doctrine called "annihilationism."

Ok we can keep on chatting. Sorry I have had to rush this reply I have to go out for the day. Will be back on the forum this evening.

Great chatting!

David

Great!

All the best,

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard

Hey there David,

I appreciate your comments, but I think there are two fundamental logical flaws in your answer. First, quoting that verse as proof that Scripture is inspired is circular reasoning, technically known as Petitio Principii (Begging the Question). Second, it is absurd to claim that all of something is true merely because part of it is true. For example, anyone can say 1 + 1 = 2. Does that mean that all their words are true? Of course not.

I did say; "not that this is proof by itself"; I simply quoted that verse to let the Bible explain itself. I can agree with your other statement because that applies to anything said or written.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?

My belief has come from years of study and listening to what people say and forming my opinion. I have settled on the Bible. I do not rely on any one translation and compare the different translations. I will reject those which I have been given evidence of to show tampering with the word in order to conform to a particular doctrine that is not in harmony with the reset of scripture. I have explained elsewhere that there is not just one reason why I believe, though the real test for proving God is as God has declared. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens. What God promises happens. I have yet to find a failed promise or prophecy. No one else can tell you the future such that the things spoken of came true. I am repeating what I have said elsewhere in this forum.

And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

I look for harmony amongst the books contained in the Bible. The books not selected by the compilers were left out for a reason. I am only concerned with the books in the Bible ad that they are in harmony, otherwise you would have a case, which I know you have not got; only you think you have.

You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.

I was not referring to Universal Love or The Golden Rule; as you say I was. I was referring to secular morality, but if you say secular morality comprises of Universal Love and The Golden Rule I do not know what you are talking about.

And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.

If it were done arbitrarily without just cause, I would agree with you. God says; "venegeance belongeth to me" and God will avenge the wrong done to His people. As far as I can find out, God's vengeance is just. Could God have been more more merciful, perhaps, but would have being more merciful to pagans practicing idolatry (who would not be willing change their ways) been a just thing to do? It is a hard act to do; balancing justice and mercy and I am in no position to judge God for doing what God can do and I cannot. I am not saying that genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality. It neither exemplifies nor diminishes. You fail to see any wrong/evil needing to be radically removed like a cancer is removed. The world has moved on from the the culture we are considering. God is not taking vengeance for His people today who were scattered and were not a nation. God will come to their rescue again now that they are a nation once more. we can expect great carnage to come. Without God's interference, we witness genocide and rape going on in recent wars and yet you do not blame man. You will blame God for not intervening or punishing the perpetrators. InFrom what you say, God is damned if He does and damned if He does not. You say on occassions; "you cannot have it both ways" and here you are damning God both ways.

You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?

You are confusing yourself and that is your problem and my helping you to find a reason does not appear to be working.

The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."

We have dealt with this elsewhere, so please excuse me for not having time to repeat my answer here which is in another thread.

That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.

The substance I use is the word of God which you do not accept, therefore the substance we use cannot be identical. You do not use scripture to answer scripture. I am not making a presumption and it is not correct for you to infer to others reading this that I am. It is your presumption that I am presuming. Let others be the judge.

I am not talking about what we humans attribute to God. I am talking about what the BIBLE attributes to God. How is it possible that you fail to understand this? I've repeated it a million times already.

Repeating it a miilions times does not make it correct; carry on repeating it another miilion times; that is insanity, repeating an action and expecting a different result. I will stick with what I accept to be correct unless you can convince me of error. I am waiting for you to say something different.

Great!
I hope you stick around until we get this point settled

I do not want to go insane.

I got the impression that you were defining yourself as a YEC in your comment

Maybe a bit of both. I do not like labels; I am seeking truth, not association with any sect or persuasion.

No, they are not. God's morals, as presented in the Bible, are abominable.

I just wanted to refute this statement, otherwise it looks like I am condoning it.

And I am not powerless. Sure, my power is much less than "omnipotent" but then again, so is the power of the God you are trying to defend, else he would be here defending himself! Or better, he would have written a book that didn't make him look like a primitive Bronze age tribal war god!.

What power do you have to solve the world's problems? You are not saying you can, so you are not an idiot to make such a claim.
Again, you want to say what God should do, and so I will say it again; when you can make your own planet you can do things your way. You cannot dictate what God does when you do not have the wisdom to judge correctly. We have to get away from this or we shall become insane for repeating ourselves and going round in circles. I cannot say anything to change your mind as you have not produced any new evidence to make me change my mind. I think we have to move on from this thread and tackle it again in another thread where we are having the same argument or wait for a new thread and appraoch it differently.

And that's the meaning of the religious doctrine called "annihilationism."

The Bible says we go back to dust at death; OK, this is annhilation. I do not give myself the label of annhilationist, I just accept the plain simple teaching of scripture.

Till next time,

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I did say; "not that this is proof by itself"; I simply quoted that verse to let the Bible explain itself. I can agree with your other statement because that applies to anything said or written.

I understand that you did not take it as "proof by itself." But the truth is that it is not "proof" in any way at all. Paul was talking about the OT at best, and even then we don't know what books he included in the canon.

As for your other statement that you must accept everything in the Bible if you accept anything - that is false. You can simpy accept the Bible as a human document, NOT inspired by God, but containing lots of truth like any other book. Your choice to believe it is entirely "inspired" and therefore "inerrant and infallible" is obviously false since it contains many errors.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question. Why do you choose to believe the Bible in the first place? And how did you choose which Bible to believe (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox)?

My belief has come from years of study and listening to what people say and forming my opinion. I have settled on the Bible. I do not rely on any one translation and compare the different translations. I will reject those which I have been given evidence of to show tampering with the word in order to conform to a particular doctrine that is not in harmony with the reset of scripture. I have explained elsewhere that there is not just one reason why I believe, though the real test for proving God is as God has declared. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens. What God promises happens. I have yet to find a failed promise or prophecy. No one else can tell you the future such that the things spoken of came true. I am repeating what I have said elsewhere in this forum.

I'm surprised you are making such claims. If prophecies really were fulfilled, the high-powered apologists would be making use of them. But the fact is that very few, if any, can be conclusively proven to have been fulfilled.

I think we should discuss prophecies. It would be great if you started a thread listing three prophecies that can be proven.

Also, concerning Scripture: You have not explained how you know which books should be in the Bible. Why do you not accept the Catholic or Greek Orthodox Bibles with the apocrypha? Why are you following one particular human tradition (Protestant vs. Catholic, etc.) and claiming it is from God?

And most importantly, the Bible no where states what books it contains, so you must rely upon mere humans to give you a book that you have chosen to believe to be "of God." How is that any different than the Book of Mormon or the Koran?

I look for harmony amongst the books contained in the Bible. The books not selected by the compilers were left out for a reason. I am only concerned with the books in the Bible ad that they are in harmony, otherwise you would have a case, which I know you have not got; only you think you have.

Ah ... the "harmony" argument. That has a special place in my heart because it was the primary argument Harold Camping used to justify all his lunatic doctrines. He asserted that we could know with great certainty that his doctrines were true because they were the only doctrines that "harmonized" everything in the Bible. He was, of course, radically insane. His "harmonies" were nothing but tortuous exercises in transparently fallacious word-twisting.

The problem with "harmony" is that one man's harmony is another man's cacophony. There needs to be an objective standard, else it's all just a private mind-game with no objective validity.

You say that Universal Love and The Golden Rule are "about as low as possible"? That's the morality I was referring to when I said "secular." I call it "secular" because it is based on human nature rather than religious dogma.

I was not referring to Universal Love or The Golden Rule; as you say I was. I was referring to secular morality, but if you say secular morality comprises of Universal Love and The Golden Rule I do not know what you are talking about.

That is the common morality of the world, independent of any religion. Secular means "of the world, independent of religion."

The Golden Rule is found in all cultures, independent of religion. Likewise, Love is found in all cultures, independent of religion.

Religion often destroys Love for All and the Golden Rule.

And I am amazed that you think genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality.

If it were done arbitrarily without just cause, I would agree with you. God says; "venegeance belongeth to me" and God will avenge the wrong done to His people. As far as I can find out, God's vengeance is just. Could God have been more more merciful, perhaps, but would have being more merciful to pagans practicing idolatry (who would not be willing change their ways) been a just thing to do? It is a hard act to do; balancing justice and mercy and I am in no position to judge God for doing what God can do and I cannot. I am not saying that genocide and rape exemplifies God's morality. It neither exemplifies nor diminishes. You fail to see any wrong/evil needing to be radically removed like a cancer is removed. The world has moved on from the the culture we are considering. God is not taking vengeance for His people today who were scattered and were not a nation. God will come to their rescue again now that they are a nation once more. we can expect great carnage to come. Without God's interference, we witness genocide and rape going on in recent wars and yet you do not blame man. You will blame God for not intervening or punishing the perpetrators. InFrom what you say, God is damned if He does and damned if He does not. You say on occassions; "you cannot have it both ways" and here you are damning God both ways.

You touch a point of great irony. The supposed reason for killing everyone in the flood was to stop all the sin. But killing them fixed nothing. In no time God had to rain down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. And history is filled with the similar stories. Meanwhile, God is absolutely absent from the scene - like a dysfunctional parent. We have been entirely on our own.

Where did you get the idea that I don't "blame man" for war crimes? I most certainly do!

You are not dealing with what the Bible actually states. Why does God present himself as indistinguishable from a Bronze age tribal war god? Is he just trying to confuse us?

You are confusing yourself and that is your problem and my helping you to find a reason does not appear to be working.

It's "not working" because you have not actually given any reason for me to think I am wrong on this point. You are simply avoiding what the Bible actually states, which is exceedingly ironic given your stated belief in said book.

If you think I am wrong to say that the Bible presents God like a Bronze age tribal war god, you will need to explain your reasons. Here are mine:

1) Yahweh demands blood sacrifices, like most other Bronze-age tribal war gods.
2) Yahweh commands genocide and kidnapping of virgins like Bronze-age tribal war gods.
3) Yahweh afflicts his people with plagues, famines, and storms when he is angry.
4) Yahweh exults in victory in war and over the gods of other tribes.
5) etc. ...

The Bible is filled with things that we know cannot be true about God. For example, what rational being would afflict Israel with a three year famine because of the actions of a former king and then lift it only when they murder seven of his sons (2 Sam 21)? That's neither wise nor rational. And it's certainly not kind or good. It's simply insane. It cannot be the actions of the true God. The Bible is filled with this kind of insanity attributed to God. You can't see it because you have blinded yourself by your presumption that the Bible is the "Word of God."

We have dealt with this elsewhere, so please excuse me for not having time to repeat my answer here which is in another thread.

Well, I don't know what post you are talking about. I certainly don't think we have every resolved anything relating to 2 Sam 21, let alone the general irrationality of the OT God.

That makes no more sense than your first comment. The "substance" we use in our reasoning is identical. The only difference is that you cannot admit what the Bible really says because it contradicts your presumption that the Bible is the Word of God.

The substance I use is the word of God which you do not accept, therefore the substance we use cannot be identical. You do not use scripture to answer scripture. I am not making a presumption and it is not correct for you to infer to others reading this that I am. It is your presumption that I am presuming. Let others be the judge.

We are both using the same "substance" (the Bible). You simply have a presumption about the "substance" that I do not share, that it is the "inspired Word of God." If that is not a "presumption" then what is it?

I do not want to go insane.

Then you shouldn't have joined this forum!

Maybe a bit of both. I do not like labels; I am seeking truth, not association with any sect or persuasion.

Yes, YEC is a "label" but it fits every person who believes that the earth is on the order of 10,000 years old. If the label fits, wear it!

What power do you have to solve the world's problems? You are not saying you can, so you are not an idiot to make such a claim.
Again, you want to say what God should do, and so I will say it again; when you can make your own planet you can do things your way. You cannot dictate what God does when you do not have the wisdom to judge correctly. We have to get away from this or we shall become insane for repeating ourselves and going round in circles. I cannot say anything to change your mind as you have not produced any new evidence to make me change my mind. I think we have to move on from this thread and tackle it again in another thread where we are having the same argument or wait for a new thread and appraoch it differently.

You are correct, I cannot dictate what GOD does. But I most certainly can evaluate the validity of a book manifestly written and handed down by humans as the "Word of God," be it the Koran, the book of Mormon, or the various versions of the Bible. Indeed, I have no choice but to make such judgments. And when I judge the Bible - using the same standards I would use for any other book - I find two things: 1) It is extremely superior to the Koran and the book of Mormon, 2) It is extremely inferior to what I would expect from an omniscient God.

The Bible says we go back to dust at death; OK, this is annhilation. I do not give myself the label of annhilationist, I just accept the plain simple teaching of scripture.

That teaching is not so "plain" as you might think. The Bible says "to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord."

Till next time,

David

You're one mighty Word Warrior my friend! It's been a pleasure.

Richard