What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Esquilax]

Taking another stroll down the path of dishonesty are we?

Still unable to shake off this false dichotomy where people are either right, or lying, are you?

There is no explicit law against beating ANYONE period! remember the story of Jesus beating the money changers in the temple?

As if this makes it better?

2. Insofar as the bible addresses the issue at all, it excuses it, offering no consequences for an act that, in most other contexts, it would consider murder and actually offer consequences for.

Wrong again!
Hebrew law is very clear on distinguishing murder from killing someone unintentionally (manslaughter). If you commit murder then you were punished by the authorities, In the case of manslaughter the family of the victim had a right to kill you (eye for an eye) unless you made it to a city of refuge. Beating a slave and him dying days later show that the death wasn't intentional, and though the law doesn't punish you, it doesn't mean the victims family won't come after you.

I'll post the relevant scriptures from the NIV since it's dumbed down enough for you mouth-breathers to understand.

Sigh.

2. Insofar as the bible addresses the issue at all, it excuses it, offering no consequences for an act that, in most other contexts, it would consider murder and actually offer consequences for.

I am well aware that there is a distinction between murder and manslaughter, Huggy. It is, however, an irrelevant distinction, because both crimes have an ascribed punishment in the bible, and yet beating a slave to death does not. In fact, the bible explicitly dismisses the idea that a slave owner should be punished for that. If you're going to assert that the family can still come after you, then you're just adding additional content not actually in the text to make yourself feel better. It really is just your fantasy.

Besides, the verses you quote specify a "neighbor," but we already know that the neighbors in this context have special laws for slavery that don't apply to the other kinds of slaves that are being discussed in the Exodus passage. It's not applicable in the least.

I guess since I debunked your two "facts" this is irrelevant? But I must ask, since there is no law against beating ANYONE, do you think that means it's ok to walk around beating people without cause?

So, it's your claim that a book that will explicitly make laws against boiling goats in their mother's milk just happened to skip over this more important thing and just assumed that they'd get that it's against god's will anyway? The same book that wouldn't make the same assumption regarding murder?

You were saying?

Just admit you messed up.. sheesh

You really have no fucking shame at all, do you?

[Cato]

Cato's presuppositions are that God does not exist. Consequently, anything that he can twist to his own purposes will be used twisted and used against Christians.

Tell me what it is I'm twisting or what my atheism has to do with our discussion.

You stated that the claim 'God condones rape' is stupid. I used your precious book to demonstrate how fatuous your statement was. Confronted with clearly having to admit you were wrong, you decided to double down with unsupported claims of my twisting meaning to serve another purpose.

I don't think you understand what presupposition means. I used Bible verses to support my argument, thereby tacitly acknowledging the existence of God for the sake of the argument.

Just admit that your God condones rape. It's your only intellectually honest option at this point.

[Randy Carson]

Your eisegesis is required by your presuppositions.

By all means, please tell me what presupposition(s) are required to conclude God orders rape based on the following:

2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB: Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'  Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]

Because of David's sin with Bathsheba (adultery, btw - or does God condone that, too?????????), God threatened to punish David by taking away his kingdom and his wives, etc. This would have been a very public humiliation for David. David did repent, but where is the rape in this passage?

There is none.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB: "When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."

The Israelite men could have simply raped the women and left them to fend for themselves or kept them as sex slaves - like the men of other nations did with their captives. But that's NOT the standard that God set; He commanded the Israelites that they must take the women as their wives. What privileges would a wife married to an Israelite man have? All the same rights and privileges that a Jewish woman would have.

If you can't see that as an improvement, then it's because you don't WANT to see it.

Judges 5:30 NAB: They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Sisera was a Canaanite...not an Israelite...he was killed by an Israelite woman, Jael. But the verse you quoted is actually from Sisera's mother wondering why her son was not returning home more quickly. The song says:

28 “Through the window peered Sisera’s mother;
   behind the lattice she cried out,
‘Why is his [Sisera's] chariot so long in coming?
   Why is the clatter of his chariots delayed?’
29 The wisest of her ladies answer her;
   indeed, she keeps saying to herself,
30 ‘Are they not finding and dividing the spoils:
   a woman or two for each man,
colorful garments as plunder for Sisera,
   colorful garments embroidered,
highly embroidered garments for my neck—
   all this as plunder?’

So, you see that it was the CANAANITE MOTHER who believes that her son, Sisera, is taking "a woman or two".



This is the sort of behavior engaged in by OTHER NATIONS that I have been pointing out to EVERYONE in this thread all along. God commanded Israelites to live by a higher standard because:

GOD DOES NOT CONDONE RAPE. THE CANAANITES DID.

Thank you for bringing this passage to my attention.

Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB: Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.  

Zechariah is prophesying against ISRAEL. Iraelite women will be ravished by the men of other nations.

Zechariah 14:1 (NIV)
A day of the Lord is coming, Jerusalem, when your possessions will be plundered and divided up within your very walls.

And when that prophecy was fulfilled, Israelite women were ravished by the men of other nations who did not treat women as well as God commanded the Israelite men to treat them.

Again, thank you for illustrating the differences between God's people and the other nations.

[Randy Carson]

I didn't ask you what Cato's presupposition is, I asked you what your basis was for coming to the conclusion that he has that presupposition. What information led you to thinking that he has this presupposition?

A presupposition is a thing which is implied or understood without being expressed at the beginning of a line of argument.

Have you ever read his profile? He's not only an atheist but he self-describes as an anti-theist.

IOW, not only does he not believe in God but he is opposed to anyone who does.

That's taking things to a whole other level.

Beyond that, do you read his posts? He's not hesitant to share his beliefs.

I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

[Cato]

David did repent, but where is the rape in this passage?

There is none.

What the hell else does "He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight" mean?
= God condones rape.

If you can't see that as an improvement, then it's because you don't WANT to see it.

Giving the rape victim room and board does not magically make it 'not rape'. = God condones rape.

Sisera was a Canaanite...not an Israelite...he was killed by an Israelite woman, Jael. But the verse you quoted is actually from Sisera's mother wondering why her son was not returning home more quickly.

I stand corrected on the purpose of the verse, but don't get ahead of yourself here. This is not evidence that God doesn't condone rape. In fact I'll just trade you a Midianite for a Caananite to square the account. = God condones rape.

Zechariah is prophesying against ISRAEL. Iraelite women will be ravished by the men of other nations.

I can concede this also, but again no mention of God not condoning rape. Similarly I'll trade this for how the Benjamites got their wives from Jabesh Gilead.

I learned a little in the exchange, but there is still more than sufficient evidence that the God of the Bible condones rape.

[Cato]

IOW, not only does he not believe in God but he is opposed to anyone who does.

Anti-theist means I oppose religion. As for believers, a vast majority of my friends believe in God. So much for your idiotic conclusion. My wife is Christian and I didn't even have to take her from a neighboring tribe at the command of my non-God.

I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

Horseshit! Again I ask, where in this conversation does my atheism (and now my anti-theism) come into play? You are so desperate that you quoted a definition of presupposition after I took it away from you be laying out the fact that by quoting the Bible I tacitly acknowledge the existence of God for the sake of the argument. How fucking dumb can you be?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As it says in Sirach 33:25-26 (CEB) = 25 Fodder, a rod, and burdens for donkeys;
bread, discipline,
and work for household slaves.
26 Set them to work with discipline,
and you will have leisure;
let their hands be idle,
and they will seek freedom.

Slaves = donkeys.

[Randy Carson]

David did repent, but where is the rape in this passage?

There is none.

What the hell else does "He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight" mean?
= God condones rape.

If you can't see that as an improvement, then it's because you don't WANT to see it.

Giving the rape victim room and board does not magically make it 'not rape'. = God condones rape.

Sisera was a Canaanite...not an Israelite...he was killed by an Israelite woman, Jael. But the verse you quoted is actually from Sisera's mother wondering why her son was not returning home more quickly.

I stand corrected on the purpose of the verse, but don't get ahead of yourself here. This is not evidence that God doesn't condone rape. In fact I'll just trade you a Midianite for a Caananite to square the account. = God condones rape.

Zechariah is prophesying against ISRAEL. Iraelite women will be ravished by the men of other nations.

I can concede this also, but again no mention of God not condoning rape. Similarly I'll trade this for how the Benjamites got their wives from Jabesh Gilead.

I learned a little in the exchange, but there is still more than sufficient evidence that the God of the Bible condones rape.

Okay, Cato.

Believe what you want. You've been shown the correct interpretations. If it consoles you somehow to think that God is a moral monster, then enjoy those thoughts.

[Whateverist]

I think my assessment of Cato's presuppositions was reasonable in light of these things.

How fucking dumb can you be?

It isn't really his fault, Cato.  The mold he is using to formulate the truth has a god built in.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nope Buggy, the ten quote mined posts of different members are not in any way relevant to the conversation.

That was in response to being called dishonest. Since the person obviously didn't know what constitutes dishonesty, I provided examples.

Your best example is your own posting.  You're just too purblind to understand it.