RT @LIAint: Just read @world_mag's "In the Shadow of War" about the people of the Nuba Mountains. Anyone else read it yet? 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Christmas is coming and atheists are at it again
Atheists are at it again this year, plastering billboards and the sides of buses in cities across the country with their very own sayings of the season. “No god? . . . No problem!” “Be good for goodness’ sake.” “Millions are good without God.” And, “Yes, Virginia . . . there is no God.”
The executive director of the American Humanist Association offers an explanation for the campaigns: “We don’t intend to rain on anyone’s parade, but secular people celebrate the holidays, too, and we’re just trying to reach out to our people.” It’s a fascinating phenomenon, really. It’s as though nonbelievers somehow feel threatened by all the religious references they see around them at this time of year. No, wait. That can’t be. Multi-colored lights, brightly decorated stores, secular holiday music blasting through malls, and Santas with reindeer on front lawns have nothing to do with religion. What’s really at work here?
In an interview for Salvo magazine, Dinesh D’Souza, discussed atheism and why he believes atheists are becoming more vocal:
“[I]f you truly believe that there is no proof for God, then you’re not going to bother with the matter. You’re just going to live your life as if God isn’t there.
“I don’t believe in unicorns, so I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You’ll notice that I haven’t written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don’t spend my time obsessing about unicorns. What I’m getting at is that you have these people out there who don’t believe that God exists, but who are actively attempting to eliminate religion from society, setting up atheist video shows, and having atheist conferences. There has to be more going on here than mere unbelief.”
D’Souza doesn’t believe most atheists specifically reject Christian theology. He thinks it’s Christian morality they find objectionable because it’s threatening:
“The atheist looks at all of Christianity’s ‘thou shalt nots’—homosexuality is bad; divorce is bad; adultery is bad; premarital sex is bad—and then looks at his own life and says, ‘If these things are really bad, then I’m a bad guy. But I’m not a bad guy; I’m a great guy. I must thus reinterpret or (preferably) abolish all of these accusatory teachings that are putting me in a bad light.’”
If atheists care enough to try and counter Christmas, maybe, like the Grinch who tried to steal it, they just need to see true Christian love and charity in action. How about an invitation to Christmas dinner?
back to top84 Comments to “Christmas is coming and atheists are at it again”
End days are coming
Report comment to moderator
“I just go about my life as if there are no unicorns. You’ll notice that I haven’t written any books called The End of the Unicorn, Unicorns Are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion, and I don’t spend my time obsessing about unicorns.”
Yes, but what if most of the country believed in Unicorns, had a “Unicorn” political agenda that was not benign, wanted every one to pledge to “One Nation under the Unicorn,” and continually threatened all non-Unicorn believers with eternal damnation?
Maybe you’d consider writing books with titles like the above!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with the conclusion.
And I agree it is the Bible’s morality that makes people uncomfortable – actually not the morality but the accountability. I suspect many people deny God because they know if they accepted Him they would have to change – and the flesh does not want to change.
But D’Souza’s argument about unicorns is very weak. There aren’t a whole lot of people running around dedicating their lives to The Unicorn and suggesting that it would be good if everyone else did as well. If any group of Unicornists approaching anywhere near the size of Christian believers were in the world today, I suggest D’Souza would have written several of the books he facetiously titles in his quote.
Report comment to moderator
#1 That is SO dumb!
Report comment to moderator
The other hypocrisy here is the D’Souza DOES obsess about atheism and evolution, in many books, and in many public talks!
Report comment to moderator
A better topic would be “Christmas is Coming and Christians are at it again!”
Report comment to moderator
Hmmmm, how does #4 fit in with D’Souza’s theory? I disagree with #1 also, but I just ignored it. “Spinoza” feels a need to ridicule it.
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza 12.04.09 AT 1:01 PM
#1 That is SO dumb!
–
only dumb if you do not believe in God’s Word. If you are a Christian it is just another sign the ends are coming.
Report comment to moderator
I have always wondered: if atheists are so sure there is no God, then why they get into a tizzy whenever God is brought into the public arena? Can there really be a true atheist?
Report comment to moderator
Concur that the unicorn argument is weak. However I too think that the accountability issue is at the crux.
“No god? . . . No problem!” I say there is a problem. “Be good for goodness’ sake.” I say define good. “Millions are good without God.” Again I say, define good. And, “Yes, Virginia . . . there is no God.” Is this the same Virginia from Billy Joel’s “Only the good die young”?
Have a Merry Christmas and may God bless you in 2010!
Report comment to moderator
I’m not an atheist, but it bothers me when someone brings their particular cultic sectarian deity into the public arena and claims we should all believe in it. It is every bit as bothersome as if an atheist were to proclaim that nobody can belief in any god.
PR – “If you are a Christian it is just another sign the ends are coming.”
Yes, because everything is just another sign the ends (sic) are coming.
My last sentence is a clear indication that the end is near!
Report comment to moderator
#10 Christians like to claim that atheists don’t believe because they want to sin. This makes them comfortable, because it lets them off the hook from facing the fact that there is inadequate evidence for their beliefs.
Like many an atheist, I am an agnostic out of honesty, pure and simple!!
Report comment to moderator
Spinoza, we all sin. Whether we “like” it or not is irrelevant.
As far a evidence, faith is belief in things unseen. I think it is harder to believe than not, ergo I think I still “on the hook”.
I accept your honesty and hope you can accept mine.
Report comment to moderator
Here we go again with Bill O’Reilly, the Liberty Council, and all the other usual suspects whipping up hysteria over a non-existent “War on Christmas.” The bumper stickers are being cranked out and the boycotts are being organized once again.
But consider the fact that Christmas is the ONLY purely religious holiday that has been co-opted by the government, despite the separation of church and state. Consider the fact that on Christmas Day virtually all federal, state, and local government functions grind to a halt, so that non-Christians essentially have no choice but to go along for the ride. And never mind the fact that other religious traditions have their respective celebrations this time of year as well.
Is it any wonder that non-Christians choose to observe the holiday on their own terms, and not necessarily bowing down before Baby Jesus? Is it any wonder that stores wish their customers “Happy Holidays” in addition to “Merry Christmas?”
Most of my friends are Christian, and I wish them “Merry Christmas.” But I’m not going to send my Jewish and Muslim friends greeting cards that read, “Please join me in celebrating the birth of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!” It’s not a matter of political correctness, it’s a matter of TACT.
No one is telling Christians they can’t celebrate however they see fit. But when Christmas is the ONLY religious holiday that has been co-opted by the government, please don’t claim you are somehow getting the short end of the stick.
Report comment to moderator
When 96% of the population celebrates Christmas (and it does) then it only makes sense for the government to make it a day off. If they didn’t, they’d have a 96% absentee rate too.
Sometimes, it really is about common sense.
Report comment to moderator
“Glory to God among the highest!
And on earh, peace,
Among men, delight!” Luke 2: 14
Concordant Literal New Testament;
1st edition, 1926
2nd printing, 1978
Report comment to moderator
“No god? . . . No problem!” I say there is a problem. “Be good for goodness’ sake.” I say define good.
believing in God is no escape from this problem. Define God. Define ‘good’. If your answer is that God and good are both defined in the bible, then please justify exactly why these should be accepted as the correct definitions.
I’m quite certain they are NOT!
Report comment to moderator
#10
The ethical argument for the existence of God is extremely weak and usually is reduced to I need moral guidance and certainty therefore there must be a god to tell me. In other words the effect asserts the cause. You end up justifying a belief in terms of a need. One can assert the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster in much the same manner.
Report comment to moderator
No. 4 is dumber by a long shot.
Report comment to moderator
roger patno 12.04.09 AT 4:32 PM
No. 4 is dumber by a long shot.
–
what do you expect from someone who is not a Christian but wants to post on a Christian Site.
Report comment to moderator
Roger and Roy, let’s not descend to junior high stuff too. Pastor Roy, I’m fairly sure everyone is welcome to post here, as long as they abide by the rules, and I for one am glad that unbelievers choose to come and interact with us (again, as long as they abide by the rules).
Now, with stuff like this billboard, I do sort of wonder why anyone would want to waste money to tell other people what they don’t believe. Go for it–don’t believe. If you don’t believe in God, why on earth do you make Him such an important person in your life that you create billboards about Him? It seems to me that the hound of heaven is at work here, and no one can “simply” not believe.
Report comment to moderator
#12 Here is Aldous Huxley:
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves… For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
John 3:19-20 – “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”
John 8:42-47 – “Jesus said to them, ‘If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.’”
Report comment to moderator
#18 – When a Flying Spaghetti Monster inspires men to write a Book telling us of Him, and inspires many to tell of what He did in their lives, and comes down, dies and is raised again on the third day – then let me know.
Report comment to moderator
“Millions are good without God.”
Sure, they may live relatively upright and moral lives, compared to other humans, without believing in God. But this does not mean that they do it without God.
So #18 it’s not that “I need moral guidance”; that’s twisting the argument. It’s that you either deny the existence of anything but the material and physical, in which case there is no higher moral standard and you cannot condemn anything as immoral without being inconsistent; or you accept that there is a higher, supernatural reality (God). It’s not about proving God’s existence, since that can be quickly evaded by taking the first option above; it’s about facing and accepting the implications of one’s beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
BTW #18 I know you didn’t make the statement “Millions are good without God”, that’s from the main post.
Report comment to moderator
#23
When a Flying Spaghetti Monster inspires men to write a Book telling us of Him, and inspires many to tell of what He did in their lives, and comes down, dies and is raised again on the third day – then let me know.
Claims of inspiration are merely that; claims. You are asserting, on the basis of faith not evidence, that the Judeo-Christian God is responsible and has inspired men to write the Book. Similar claims have been made by other religion in what is essentially competing claims from Mohamed, L. Ron Hubbard or Joseph Smith. Similarly an atheist cannot disprove a negative – a claim of non inspiration. Although to give the atheist credit, its difficult to prove a negative. So we are left with the agnostic position — it cannot be logically assert either way and hence we are in doubt until further evidence is provided.
Report comment to moderator
’s that you either deny the existence of anything but the material and physical, in which case there is no higher moral standard and you cannot condemn anything as immoral without being inconsistent; or you accept that there is a higher, supernatural reality (God)
When one asserts that only the material and physical is known he is not asserting the non-existence of something different rather that its simply not known. However, to live in a material physical world does not preclude the existence of ethics. Ethical claims could be made on the basis of culture, balance (or karma if you like) or even evolution/survival. I’m inclined to material explanations of our motives for doing good without denying the influence of social-economic environment. Yet I’m not willing to make this claim to the exclusion of other claims rather barring further evidence to the contrary my explanation is the most likely to be correct. Thus, I’m not inconsistent in my condemnation but I am limited by an inability to make universal claims of morality which in my view is not a bad thing. For much like ideological purity, exclusionary morality can have negative and even totalitarian consequences.
Report comment to moderator
#22 I don’t doubt there are others like Aldous Huxley, but there have been as many who wanted to have faith but were just too honest to practice a faith born, not of reasonable belief, but of wish-fulfillment.
The wish for immortality, in particular!
Report comment to moderator
This post and many of the comments that follow just provide further evidence that many (most?) Christians have no idea what atheists (don’t) believe or why they (don’t) believe it. Furthermore, it seems like they would rather invent agendas and motives to attribute to atheists than actually try to understand what really drives non-believers.
Report comment to moderator
Hey! atheist have their own day, so why steal Christmas?
Report comment to moderator
If we take the attitude, “Why should I care what others believe”, then no one should care about how Bush Jr thumped a bible to get votes only to trash our economy and world standing.
Wouldn’t it have been nice if someone had been able to question the beliefs of the 9/11 hijackers to convince them not to do what they did?
The fact is belief DOES affect what you do and therefor the world around you. And as such, there should be no taboos to questioning everything, least we become lemmings.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear.” Thomas Jefferson
Report comment to moderator
We live in an age of ipods and computers and no sane person believes they are run by pixies or hamsters turning a wheel. Yet adults in every country around the world claim that there is an invisible magical super brain with no body, no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum, floating in the cosmos, everywhere and nowhere at the same time meddling in the affairs of humans.
The details are different but the motif is the same. My super hero will swoop down and sweep me off the tracks and vanquish the villain. They have their super heros and the west has theirs and all are willing to base wars and politics on it to the detriment of peace.
So forgive me for caring about the only planet I have to live on being used as a bloody game of capture the flag.
Report comment to moderator
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
The point of my posts IS to offend, but not out of hate, or any desire to want government force of the end of religion. BUT a Jeffersonian approach in getting people to THINK beyond and outside what they are used to.
If we always believed what we always believed humanity never would have left the caves and we would still believe the earth was flat. I am glad people in the past were brave enough to question blindly accepted norms. Humanity cannot afford to dwell on ancient myths. There are far to many competing in the world when the focus should be on pragmatic issues such as pollution, disease, famine, crime and war, that affect all of humanity.
Report comment to moderator
Brian, are you still waiting for the day Jefferson talks about?
As for me, I’m still waiting for Random’s insight.
I don’t see where we have an issue about this particular idea. It’s a free country. They are free to advertise whatever they want to propigate. As long as they preach it peacefully, let the athiest, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, etc. tell their story. That’s what makes America America.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Report comment to moderator
that’s right thank you Chas
Report comment to moderator
In THIS country, in the USA, the PEOPLE are the government, not the legislators or the judges or the president. The PEOPLE. So, there is no government co-opting Christmas. The majority of the people celebrate it. Get used to it.
Report comment to moderator
Even my atheist relatives absolutely love Christmas.
Now if only they would come to love Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Chas, WE are not in disagreement that this IS as it should be, a free country. IF you had read my posts I was commenting on the absurdity of the title of this article. I think Christians are threatened by the fact that this IS a free country and crying foul that atheists are not treating the Holidays as a Jesus festival.
This IS America, not Jesusland, like a theme park or theocracy. We are “at it again”, much like Galileo was “at it” telling the truth about the earth rotating around the sun. FACT, you can be good without god. How are atheists lying by telling people that?
Report comment to moderator
#34
<iAs for me, I’m still waiting for Random’s insight.
I think my insight is stuck in the drain with Godot.
Report comment to moderator
Plenty of people celebrate Christmas. The economy has come to depend on people buying presents for each other (many of which are not particularly wanted or appreciated) like a drug addict depends on his or her next fix.
Why this needs to be a “national holiday,” escapes me. For that matter, I am not sure why we need any “national holidays.”
Everyone get back to work. And stop reading worldmagblog and posting comments to it while you are at work.
If we just abolished national holidays and stop wasting time on the Internet while supposedly doing our jobs:
1) The national debt and the balance of payments imbalance would be corrected within a year.
2) Worldmagblog would probably disappear.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Brian, people can be good even if they don’t believe in God. (I personally would say man can’t be good “without God,” because I think God is the one who impresses on people what it means to be good, even those who don’t believe in Him.)
The problem of “can we be good without God” is actually deeper, though. How can we decide for sure that something is wrong without an ultimate standard, and how can we have an ultimate standard if it’s one we just make up ourselves? For instance, there’s nearly 100% agreement by human beings that murder is wrong, cannibalism is wrong, etc. Yet if a particular group of people thinks it’s OK, how can those outside that group tell them it isn’t OK? On what basis can we insist on our standards to those who don’t agree with us, even with such an absolute as you don’t kill another person and eat him? Furthermore, many animals kill others within their own species, and many even eat them. Are they acting “wrong” when they do so? If not, why is it wrong for human beings and not for animals . . . unless somehow Someone holds us to a different standard than the one He holds animals to, and innately we know what that standard is, even when we reject the One who gave it?
See, the problem isn’t really whether people can be good even if they don’t believe in God. Christians will pretty much all agree that you can. The problem is defining “evil” without any definite standard and anyone to whom we’re accountable. Without God, we have no more ultimate reason not to commit perverse evils than black widows do, and nobody outside ourselves can tell us something IS evil if it’s OK with our own conscience and that of our society. But somehow innately we know that it’s possible to think we’re OK and still be doing the wrong thing. That knowledge comes from God, according to the Bible.
Hey, good to have you join in here, by the way!
Report comment to moderator
The bible was written for the people of the time by a splinter sect of Jews who expected their hero to return IN THEIR TIME. The bible DOES NOT reflect anything modern, not even morally. It is a violent book from beginning to end and the morality is tribal and simple, “Kiss my rear or burn in hell”.
In modern pluralistic societies, we do not advocate “kissing” anyone’s rear. We are not subject to a cosmic big brother who watches you 24/7. Is that what you want people to believe? That there is a disembodied super brain, with no brain, no body, that floats in the cosmos everywhere and nowhere at the same time, recording your every move watching you 24/7 even in your most private moments, such as in the restroom or during sex?
Knowledge does not come from ancient myth anymore than knowledge comes from Harry Potter. We can find moral motifs in Harry Potter without believing that he is real or can fly around on a broom.
Report comment to moderator
CheryD’s Bible says unbelievers should be killed without mercy, even your own spouse or child. (Deut. 13:6-17). It regulates the owning of slaves without simply saying that owning other human beings is wrong. It describes the bloody, violent conquest of Canaan as a good thing, even the unnecessary slaughter of people that accompanied it.
Bible-believers have to twist themselves into knots to explain why those things no longer apply, but they still believe they’re worshiping the same God who did at one time require or allow them. Usually they’ll say that the coming of Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and made it no longer applicable, but that just glosses over the fact that they think the God who sent Jesus is the same one who commanded those things.
I think Christians portray the Bible as a source of moral values by picking those that pretty much everyone agrees on, Christian or not, and ignoring the uncomfortable parts.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible’s Guide to Objective Morality
Deut. 21:10-14:
What do we learn from this text?
It’s ok to take women from among the conquered and force them to have sex with you. You can marry them, but if you get bored with them later, you can let them go. Just don’t sell them, as you would otherwise be allowed to, because you’ve already sampled the merchandise.
This fits perfectly as an artifact of a primitive culture. Attributing it to God is near-blasphemy, to me.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
The Euthyphro Dilemma has never been adequately answered, so the idea that our morality comes from God is absurd. If you are unfamiliar with The Euthyphro Dilemma, it is essentially that we have two options to consider:
1. What is good and moral is good and moral because it is commanded by God.
2. What is good and moral is commanded by God because it is good and moral.
In the case of option 1, morality is arbitrary and God could simply change his mind. In the case of option 2, morality is independent of God and he is merely the middle man.
Furthermore, there are plenty of naturalistic reasons for morality and mechanisms to discern what is right and wrong. People who truly get their sense of ethics solely from the Bible frighten me.
Report comment to moderator
GWF81, how about a third option, the one the Bible teaches?
3. God Himself is good and moral, and He commands morality based on His own character.
And it’s far more “frightening” when a society rejects biblical ethics and makes up its own. We see that free fall today, and it ain’t pretty.
Those of you pontificating against the Bible seem to know a “talking point” or two, but don’t seem to have actually read it for yourselves. I strongly recommend that you do so. The picture really is much, much different. I won’t pretend to understand or like everything in the Old Testament, but I don’t need to justify God. He is the judge; I am not. Read the Bible in its entirety and you’ll see it is the picture of a God of justice and holiness, mercy and love. The caricature you have painted simply doesn’t look like the God who shows Himself to humanity through Jesus. And the caricature of biblical morality cannot be recognized either.
Report comment to moderator
CherylD: The caricature you have painted simply doesn’t look like the God who shows Himself to humanity through Jesus.
Exactly. You have stumbled across the point and probably don’t realize it.
By the way, your option #3 is pretty much the same as #1. If what is good and moral is defined by God, then it is arbitrary and could be entirely different if God were different. It’s not objective, as you think.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 44
You should read Matthew Henry’s Commentary which was reposted here:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/gideon-mo/TCRCPIU5RCQ0HH4QC
What needs to be certainly distinguished is a cultural law designated by Moses and that of Christ’s law. It should also be distinguished that where as you wish to read into this, it is an either/or situation. Either take her as your wife and marry her outside of the lustful moment and giving her time to grieve (become accustomed to Israel), or let her go. The let her go, is not “after” youve sampled the goods as you put it.
“If what is good and moral is defined by God, then it is arbitrary and could be entirely different if God were different. It’s not objective, as you think.”
Except that the biblical God and his description never changes. So morality is not arbitrary. He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: Moses was speaking for God, no? It’s a rule that God established. Now, you may say ‘it doesn’t apply to Christians today,’ but that’s beside the point. It’s still the same God who allowed this that you worship. (And as you yourself just said, “the biblical God and his description never changes.”)
I don’t think it is an either-or situation. In fact, that is a remarkably lame excuse as the text very clearly does not support you.
The passage begins by saying that if you see a woman among the captured that you want, you can take her as your wife. And THEN if you find no pleasure in her, you can let her go. And you can’t sell her “because you have humbled [i.e. had sex with] her.”
But even if you were right about that, you’re still defending a divine command that allowed the Israelities to kidnap women and force them into marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Conan,
So do you normally call it “humbling” when you sleep with a member of the opposite sex?
I’ve heard of hooking up, but not “humbling”
But jokes aside.
Realise that to take her at all, to make her shave her head, let her nails grow, to strip away her old clothes, time for greiving, giving up her idols, possible high position in her former society, etc…all to be married to this more than likely a soldier. In other words, youve built up her expectations and her heart, stripped away her former self…, and to then decide not to marry her…is that not humbling, is that not a violence to her heart?
It’s not a discussion of rape.
It’s a clear attempt to protect the sinful soldier against his lust in the moment, to protect the captive against him as well. It gives time (like dating) to establish whether or not hte man really loves her (outside of her skin deep beauty), and how to move on if not so.
Henry explains this very well.
Report comment to moderator
“Furthermore, there are plenty of naturalistic reasons for morality and mechanisms to discern what is right and wrong”
There is no naturalistic mechanism for establishing that there is a right and wrong that can be discerned from each other. There is no way to get to what should be from what merely is.
Does anyone actually derive their “sense of ethics” solely from the Bible, or do they instead find there a divine moral imperative that corresponds and concentrates their inborn but defective human moral compass? Paul argues the latter in Romans 1 and 2.
“The other hypocrisy here is the D’Souza DOES obsess about atheism and evolution, in many books, and in many public talks!”
Explain the hypocrisy. Are you claiming that D’Souza doesn’t believe that such a thing as atheism exists and his “obssession” with debating is therefore unseemly? D’Souza is a Roman Catholic and has no beef with evolution that I am aware of.
“This makes them comfortable, because it lets them off the hook from facing the fact that there is inadequate evidence for their beliefs.”
I find the evidence adequate. I do not find it so compelling that it rises to the level of a geometric proof. Some people are gullible, believing anything they are told without requiring any evidence. Others are so skeptical they believe nothing without final proof, a proof that cannot exist in a world where even our senses can deceive and our observations alter the experimental results. Both conditions are indefensible, morally and intellectually, but because the radical skeptic is steeped in narcissism, a godlike belief that only he or she can define what is true or real, the graver error is attached to that position.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: If you are correct that “humbling” doesn’t mean sex, you STILL HAVE A GOD WHO SANCTIONS FORCED MARRIAGE TO CAPTIVE WOMEN. Dance around that point all you like, but it stands there in black and white. If any modern army decided they could take women from their enemy and force them into marriage, every civilized person in the world would denounce it as barbaric. It is treating women as property.
If “the man really loves her,” he can marry her … with no regard as to whether she loves him, likes him, wants anything to do with him. She is given no right to refuse, no say in the matter at all.
The word of God.
Report comment to moderator
#52: No.
You’re assuming quite a lot here. I didn’t see anything about forced marriage in the verse. You read it in. The idea is to protect captive women from rape. I didn’t see that the man could get rid of the woman after he was “done” with her: when I read that, I assumed that it was talking about the 1-month mourning period. If, during that, the man found that he really didn’t like the woman, then he was to let her go, rather than, say, selling her as a slave. The entire point is to avoid a hasty decision.
This is my immediate interpretation. I suspect you got yours from a desire to throw mud on the Bible. I have to wonder why that is a goal of yours. Anyway, I think my interpretation fits a bit better with Biblical precedent than yours.
Report comment to moderator
#27: “Ethical claims could be made on the basis of culture, balance (or karma if you like) or even evolution/survival.” –Ha. So I rape your daughter. Why are you upset? I was strong enough to do it, after all. And, if we’re lucky, it may perpetuate the species. Double bonus. Evolution/survival, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: I didn’t see anything about forced marriage in the verse. You read it in.
You gotta be kidding.
Here’s the key part of the passage from the NIV:
if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
Since it very clearly says you can marry one of the captives if you want to, and does not spend one word on how she might feel about it, how do you NOT see forced marriage in there?
You may be correct that the rule protects the captives from rape, and it’s really unclear on whether the man is allowed to dismiss her after having sex with her or not, but even if we grant both those points, it still is about how the victorious Israelite can take a wife from among the captives without any regard to her desires. The woman is seen as a piece of property, a spoil of war.
Report comment to moderator
#33: “There are far to many competing in the world when the focus should be on pragmatic issues such as pollution, disease, famine, crime and war, that affect all of humanity.” –You conveniently forgot to mention why I should care. I’m only going to live ~80 years, assuming I don’t kill myself.
Report comment to moderator
#55: I don’t see forced marriage in there because it says nothing about it in there. In all honesty, both assuming that it isn’t talking about forced marriage and assuming that it is are reading more into the verse than is necessarily there.
In my hypothetical imagination, I wouldn’t want a wife who hated my guts and didn’t want to be my wife. I don’t see why a victorious Israelite would insist on keeping a woman against her will. Unless, of course, he wants to rape her, but then other laws come into play.
The point of this passage is to stop the sort of “rape and pillage” mentality that is so universally prevalent. If you want a woman, you had better be willing to take her and take care of her for the long term.
As I said, my view also includes a bit of assuming. But, as I also said, I think it fits better with Biblical precedent.
Report comment to moderator
#45: I think this is a false dilemma. Both are true. As Cheryl said, God is good and moral, and the ultimate standard. I don’t see why people who get their morality from the Bible should scare you. At least they get their morality from somewhere.
Report comment to moderator
#47: “If what is good and moral is defined by God, then it is arbitrary and could be entirely different if God were different.” –This is essentially true. Luckily, God is not “different.” As for arbitrary: I’d much rather morality were decided by God than man.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: You’re denying the plain sense of the text.
In my hypothetical imagination, I wouldn’t want a wife who hated my guts and didn’t want to be my wife. I don’t see why a victorious Israelite would insist on keeping a woman against her will. Unless, of course, he wants to rape her, but then other laws come into play.
That is a modern attitude, though. Marriage for love and mutual regard is a relatively new social innovation. In ancient times, women were property and marriage was ownership. The ancient Israelite would not necessarily care whether she wanted him or not, it would be his right to take her.
Report comment to moderator
Ken: “There is no naturalistic mechanism for establishing that there is a right and wrong that can be discerned from each other. There is no way to get to what should be from what merely is.”
There are plenty of plausible scenarios for the evolution of a sense of morality, and it is not unique to humans. Your own lack of imagination does not prevent the rest of us from understanding this.
“Does anyone actually derive their “sense of ethics” solely from the Bible, or do they instead find there a divine moral imperative that corresponds and concentrates their inborn but defective human moral compass? Paul argues the latter in Romans 1 and 2.”
Some people claim they do to make a point about the utility of their faith (e.g. “If it weren’t for the Bible, I would have killed and raped many people”), but I suspect they are not being completely honest.
Report comment to moderator
“you STILL HAVE A GOD WHO SANCTIONS FORCED MARRIAGE TO CAPTIVE WOMEN. Dance around that point all you like, but it stands there in black and white. If any modern army decided they could take women from their enemy and force them into marriage, every civilized person in the world would denounce it as barbaric. It is treating women as property.”
“how do you NOT see forced marriage in there?”
As you note in 60 Conan, women were given away in marriage in that day and age. It was all forced, even across most cultures.
But let me ask you which is better.
To be loved unconditionally, regardless of given or taken at no choice of the woman…or be loved conditioned upon some fleeting beauty at your choice?
Is modern culture so much better?
“Marriage for love and mutual regard is a relatively new social innovation.”
But it was clearly love then as well (especially for the captive). You live in a modern culture, that places so much emphasis on conditional love. When those conditons are no longer met, people walk away. With a 50% failure rate, it would seem modern marriage does not do this any better in the least.
The Israelite culture made love uncondtional. It didnt matter who was given to a man, or whether he took, so long that as if he was to be married, he was to love her regardless of anything else.
There was no heartbreak, no let down, no excuse to leave a woman. The love was not built upon her beauty that would fade or any other condition.
I’m not advocating going back to matchmaking or removing choice. Merely attempting to show that choice is not the definement of love. That choice or no choice, so long as in marriage one loves his wife as he ought too, the rest is just details.
You had made an excellent point in stating that if Moses’ intent at the end of vs 14 was a post marriage dumping, that it would conflict with God. I dont disagree there. But thats not what Moses is conveying. He wouldnt go to all the trouble of making a law to protect both the solider and the captive in the first place just to have it ruined in the end and he certainly wouldnt allow it after marriage. The pinnacle of marraige was reved highly, and its santictity was to be upheld. So the intent is clearly at the end of the month, you either marry, or let her go. There are plenty of other Israelite laws (like the lack of divorce) that would come into play to support that.
Frankly, if a man still loved a bald headed unmanicured freak after a month of watching her walk around in mourning, I’d say its pretty evident that his love is genuine for her. I dont think she would complain too much either for very long.
Report comment to moderator
I dont think she would complain too much either for very long.
No? She’s being made to marry a man who fought for the army that destroyed her town, killed her parents and made her a captive. I’m sure she’s tickled pink.
Report comment to moderator
Could be worse, she coulda been slain, raped, made a slave and sold off to who knows. Instead she’s taken in by a man and loved like no other.
I imagine her culture wasnt even close on giving her that much.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s not as bad as it could have been” is not much of an argument in favor of the Bible’s being the Word of God, now is it?
Also, I really doubt that love had much to do with it. The very next passage of Deuteronomy 21 has to do with having two wives, one you love and one you hate.
This is was not a culture that had very much concern for women as human beings, and their laws reflect it. It’s understandable as an artifact of a primitive culture; it’s not so much as the word of a benevolent God.
Report comment to moderator
Actually its a fairly good arguement considering God coulda just wiped Adam off the face, and instead chose to send a Savior.
If love had nothing to do with it, he was not to marry the captive.
Understand the law of Moses here is still to protect and guard what is sacred, with an understanding of what sinner’s do. It is not a law promoting the practice of taking captives.
This follows with the next passage that discusses two wives. The actual emphasis is over their children. The law guards against disinheriting a son just because you like one wife over the other.
With the ten commandements just being handed down, there were going to be men with more than one wife, or having divorced, not necessarily polygamous. It’s a cultureal shift that Moses is driving at as well. But even in today’s standards you could apply the same law to men who have HAD two wives and children from them both. There are many through divorce who are in this situation.
“This is was not a culture that had very much concern for women as human beings, and their laws reflect it.”
You base that solely on lack of choice in marriage..nothing more. We respect them no better in the least. Voting and work habits dont trump an enslavement to image, body and sex.
If you wanna know exactly how Israelite women were and were to be…go read Proverbs 31. Couple that with Moses who is clearly attempting to protect non Israelite women as well, and the children of women who their husbands have neglected…
Seems Moses has a clear intent to raise women up well beyond even our standards today.
Report comment to moderator
QUOTE PASTOR ROY “End days are coming”
How sick and pessimistic, and selfish. So the way for YOU to get past the velvet ropes is for the “outsiders” to suffer a violent death and beyond a violent death, to be thrown in hell to be tortured forever?
So others are just doormats and stepping stones for your gang? WOW, where do I sign up for this death cult?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: You base that solely on lack of choice in marriage..nothing more. We respect them no better in the least. Voting and work habits dont trump an enslavement to image, body and sex.
Oh no, there’s plenty more. The entire ethos of the early Old Testament treats women as property. A young man essentially buys his wife from her father with a bride price. Virginity is prized and a woman who is not a virgin is worth much less. (The phrase “damaged goods” is still meaningful today in some quarters to mean a divorced woman or even just a non-virgin, and that’s where it comes from.) A woman who is raped in the city and didn’t yell loud enough for help is considered to have been guilty of death-penalty crime. Even in the Ten Commandments, the injunction against envy lists a neighbor’s wife among his possessions, and doesn’t say anything about not coveting a neighbor’s husband. That’s because the commandment is about property, not persons, and the husband isn’t property as the wife is.
There’s more, but that’s enough for now.
As to your latter point, though, I don’t necessarily argue that everything is good today. You point up some valid concerns. Still, it’s better than it was then.
Report comment to moderator
#29 “invent agendas and motives” ?
change the word “Atheists” to “Christians”
Christians see this all the time.
People come here and read what we say and “invent agendas” and “motives” about Christians.
We all get lumped into whatever box the opposition chooses or fits for whatever topic is current discussed.
If we are so predictable, why do non-Christians come here?
Report comment to moderator
#68: “A young man essentially buys his wife from her father with a bride price.” — My understanding is that this custom is supposed to compensate the family for loss of labor. And, it exists/has existed throughout China, India, Africa, etc.
“Virginity is prized and a woman who is not a virgin is worth much less.” — Virginity being prized is a good thing. Look at all the trouble we’re having now.
“A woman who is raped in the city and didn’t yell loud enough for help is considered to have been guilty of death-penalty crime.” — Where are you getting this?
“Even in the Ten Commandments, the injunction against envy lists a neighbor’s wife among his possessions, and doesn’t say anything about not coveting a neighbor’s husband. That’s because the commandment is about property, not persons, and the husband isn’t property as the wife is.” — Actually, the commandment is about coveting. And the Bible wasn’t written in PC-ese. It’s kind of like referring to humans as mankind, I think.
In short, the woman is to be protected and taken care of. This is the overriding theme of all marriage laws in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
TJS: yes, the custom of the bride-price was widespread. That doesn’t change what it was: A purchase. Nobody pays money to the father of a young man, who is also losing a source of labor (and arguably, a more valuable one in terms of strength and endurance for manual work.)
Exodus 22:16-17: If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
If her father refuses to give her to the suitor … nowhere does she get a say. This is not a marriage of love, it is a transaction.
Actually, the commandment is about coveting. And the Bible wasn’t written in PC-ese. It’s kind of like referring to humans as mankind, I think.
Oh please. There’s nothing “PC” about it. It’s not just that one case, it’s every single case where the OT lays out rules related to marriage or sex, the woman is described as property. She belongs to her father, who can give her to a suitor in exchange for a bride-price. She is not given any basic right as a person to have a say in her marriage.
This is a clear sign that the Bible, or that part of it at least, is a cultural relic and not the word of God.
Report comment to moderator
“Still, it’s better than it was then.”
Maybe, but you didnt live then, and youve grown up in a culture that has two major differences 1. non God specific 2. has degraded the value of marriage.
“A woman who is raped in the city and didn’t yell loud enough for help is considered to have been guilty of death-penalty crime.”
Do you have a reference for this?
Even unrepentant rebellious sons were supposed to be put to death for dishonoring their parents. Every one of the Ten Commandments had implications of death penalty. And rightly so, its all sin against God.
“Even in the Ten Commandments, the injunction against envy lists a neighbor’s wife among his possessions, and doesn’t say anything about not coveting a neighbor’s husband. That’s because the commandment is about property, not persons, and the husband isn’t property as the wife is.”
I would disagree here. The emphasis is that a husband is going to obviously struggle against another man’s wife (like even King David) and that the resopnsibility is laid upon the man in the first place. It is still protecting the woman. You were to be content with what you had.
Although TJS raises a goodr esponse as well, that much like in Proverbs, son/daughter male/female can be interchangeable in these cases.
“She belongs to her father, who can give her to a suitor in exchange for a bride-price. She is not given any basic right as a person to have a say in her marriage.”
What i’m going toward is that despite your view that a wife is often viewed in a transaction or property sense, it does not change how the husband was to treat his wife in the least. She was not a slave, she was not degraded…she was to be of one flesh, to be loved, to be honored. Headship in the household did not mean degradement.
Simply because there is a transaction, doesnt mean the girl and boy had no interaction beforehand as far as interest either.
“nowhere does she get a say. This is not a marriage of love, it is a transaction.”
So your back to it really being about choice as the determinant of love. I say thats false. Marrital love is at its finest when it is unconditional. This is the love that Christ has for his church, and marriage is to be a reflection of that.
There is also emphasis on the wisdom of the father, knowing who is a good suitor for his daughter and who isnt. He wouldnt just hand his daughter over to anyone, but to a man who he believed would treat her as she ought to be treated.
The lack of daughter “say” is only assumed, and even if so, does not alter the purpose or responsibility of marriage. Nor does lack of “say” denote lack of love.
So which is better, to love unconditionally, unselfishly in marriage? Or to love based upon fleeting conditions?
Report comment to moderator
I just find it funny how some christians believe dec 25 is christs Bday. It is a pagen holiday (Sun worship) that was brought into the church to bring pagen coverts over. Shepards do not graze there flock in the winter and scieance yes scieance has calculated His birth around the same time as His Death, so depending of when passover occurred in 2bc ( the genius at the Vatican his math is off). As a Christian especially now a days christmas is just a secular (pagen) holiday. If you guys think I am nuts then why do the Greek Orthodox celebrate on the 26? Not because it is the correct date, but the fact of not paying homage to the pagen holiday. Things that make you go hummm.God Bless and Peace Always in Yeshua.Matthew
Report comment to moderator
I was going to respons to some of this, but saw that Thorn has already said anything I was going to say, and better. (Not the first time that has happened. Thanks, brother.)
Report comment to moderator
Thanks sis!
Report comment to moderator
Gee, the discussion started out well, but then deteriorated as usual into an atheist theology lecture.
I like Dinesh D’Souza, but he is completely wrong on this one. It isn’t about the “shall nots”. And the unicorn argument is not why atheists are becoming so vocal.
The reason is simply as Brian37 says in #33, “The point of my posts IS to offend”. That is it in a nutshell. That is why so many atheists lie in wait here. They find Christianity or God offensive and want to lock horns with his people. Brian pretends to be a benevolent Jeffersonian, simply wanting to enlighten morons locked into mythology, but he deceives himself.
The clearest explanation of all this is given in Romans 1. God has revealed himself to every living creature. But people prefer to worship the creature (themselves) or creation than the Creator. In other words, there is no such thing as atheists or agnostics. There are only people who accept or reject God’s revelation in their lives.
This is easy to prove. Ask anyone on earth about God and they will instantly have an opinion. No one says, “Huh, who is God?” And atheist is not someone who does not believe. An atheist is someone who hates God and delights in offending those who do.
The word agnostic simply means ignorant. It is someone who chooses willingly to make themselves ignorant about what they know to be true. Why? Because they want to answer to no one. The cost of not being accountable to anyone is that your life doesn’t count.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible speaks of unicorns. If the Bible is true, then unicorns must exist and D’Souza has shot himself in the foot.
Truth is, if you want to see a unicorn go to the San Francisco zoo. They have several. They are called unicornium rhinocerum. It is simply a Middle Eastern rhinoceros with a single horn. Unicorn is simply Latin for one-horn.
My point is that everything in the Bible is true, but only those willing to dig into it will understand this. Those whose intent is simply to offend will delight in their own twisted theology. If they cared to understand the truth, the answers are fairly simple. The secret to understanding the law of Moses is found in Gal 3:24. It is all about the Messiah. It is that simple.
Report comment to moderator
The History Channel is showcasing a National Geographic series on Jesus. The content is so predictable. The Bible is explained by scholars as a laughable silly story which is mostly false. Apparently we need these self-appointed priests to explain it to us.
National Geographic goes on to explain how Jesus was really a minor figure. It was really Mary Magdalene (the prostitute) who was the driving force behind this new religion.
Their authority is simply the power of their own imagination, since not one iota of it is based on any concrete historical facts. This is liberal scholarship at its finest. Imagine the past and it shall be so.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: “A woman who is raped in the city and didn’t yell loud enough for help is considered to have been guilty of death-penalty crime.”
Do you have a reference for this?
Deuteronomy 22:23-27: 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
The assumption is that if the sex happens in town and no one hears her scream, she must have consented to it. But that’s just an assumption. What if he had a knife at her throat, or his hand clamped over her mouth? What if she did scream and no one heard? What if she was overcome by shock and fear and just froze up? She gets no trial, no benefit of the doubt, no opportunity to offer a defense. She just gets killed by blunt force trauma.
Seriously, is this something you want to defend at all, especially as the word of a merciful God?
“Even in the Ten Commandments, the injunction against envy lists a neighbor’s wife among his possessions, and doesn’t say anything about not coveting a neighbor’s husband. That’s because the commandment is about property, not persons, and the husband isn’t property as the wife is.”
I would disagree here. The emphasis is that a husband is going to obviously struggle against another man’s wife (like even King David) and that the resopnsibility is laid upon the man in the first place. It is still protecting the woman. You were to be content with what you had.
Do you think the other man’s wife might not also struggle with desire for her neighbor’s husband? Also in Deuteronomy 22, we are told that if a man has sex with another man’s wife, both are to die (verse 22.) But there is no similar command for an unmarried woman who has sex with another woman’s husband. The man is tacitly given approval to have sex with other women, as long as they are not already the property of another man (father or husband.)
“She belongs to her father, who can give her to a suitor in exchange for a bride-price. She is not given any basic right as a person to have a say in her marriage.”
What i’m going toward is that despite your view that a wife is often viewed in a transaction or property sense, it does not change how the husband was to treat his wife in the least. She was not a slave, she was not degraded…she was to be of one flesh, to be loved, to be honored. Headship in the household did not mean degradement.
I agree with that. That is part of the purpose of the rules. But that doesn’t lessen the removal of the woman’s ability to make her own choices about who to marry. In that culture, that was not part of the picture. As a cultural trait, that’s good to understand. As the word of an unchanging God that is presumably supposed to guide us today, it is highly troubling.
Simply because there is a transaction, doesnt mean the girl and boy had no interaction beforehand as far as interest either.
“nowhere does she get a say. This is not a marriage of love, it is a transaction.”
So your back to it really being about choice as the determinant of love. I say thats false. Marrital love is at its finest when it is unconditional. This is the love that Christ has for his church, and marriage is to be a reflection of that.
That doesn’t require forcing the woman into it. I knew some Moonies once, and they practice arranged marriages. I knew two families where the parents had first met on their wedding day. Is that something you really want to reinstate large-scale?
There is also emphasis on the wisdom of the father, knowing who is a good suitor for his daughter and who isnt. He wouldnt just hand his daughter over to anyone, but to a man who he believed would treat her as she ought to be treated.
Yes, and for many centuries we had a hybrid tradition where the father didn’t choose the daughter’s husband, but the suitor was expected to seek and get the father’s permission, for that reason. That was a good balance, it seems to me, but it’s not what the Bible’s God laid out in the Old Testament.
So which is better, to love unconditionally, unselfishly in marriage? Or to love based upon fleeting conditions?
You are making a false connection. Obviously, selfless, unconditonal love is much better for marriage, but there’s nothing about that that requires the removal of mutual choice.
Report comment to moderator
Welcome back Conan, hope your healing up well.
“Seriously, is this something you want to defend at all, especially as the word of a merciful God?”
You cant rape the willing. Further, they didnt live in a big city, they are still out wandering the desert. If you were inside the “city”, your neighbor was withing speaking distance practically.
But also, where does it say they wouldnt have a trial? Obviously such an accusation would have to come before Moses or the leaders of the Israelite camp. Witnesses and evidence were required. See Duet 19:15. And if you expand back to 13 in Deut 22, this is what yousee, and the items listed are bullet point situations, and the consequences of being guilty of those.
Is this any different than a situation we find today though? One that is often determined by a woman’s accusation of rape on whether or not she put up a fight? You would have had to have a witness against her, saying she just sat there and took it willingly in order to pass judgement.
Your left with prostitutes, which may not have had a direct death penalty, but there are plenty of references it to it being a curse and leading to ruin.
“The man is tacitly given approval to have sex with other women, as long as they are not already the property of another man (father or husband.)”
Where? If girls were to be virgins or married, what was left? If a man slept with with either of these wrongfully, he was stoned for it, unless the virgin was unpledged, and only then could he marry her, and was required too, as he has dishonored her. If she was pledged and raped, he was stoned. If the girl was not a virgin at marriage, the man could bring charges against her. I dont see men getting a free pass here.
“That was a good balance, it seems to me, but it’s not what the Bible’s God laid out in the Old Testament.”
Yet we today require parental permission for under 18 do we not? These girls werent 25 years old living on their own starting careers and getting degrees. They were under the house hold of their parents and more than likely teenagers when given in marriage.
So what is emphasized is honoring your parents, purity, and most importantly God, over personal choice.
If God the Father gave his own Son no choice, why should we, man or woman, expect anything more? Did Eve get a choice?
“Is that something you really want to reinstate large-scale?”
I dont think that would work for several reasons today in AMerica. Namely, we arent a dedicated God chosen culture as far as if your meaning America. As far as christian families, I think it would work just fine. I dont think you can force it as men and women are leaving their house holds and not getting married to well into their 20s on average. It’s impractical to force it or instate it, but it is still very practical for willing families. I personally would have no objection to it, even if my parents had or would ever arrange mine.
Choice is not an excuse to ignore the sanctity or marriage, purity, or honoring our parents.
What is marital choice based on? SHould it not continue to be based on the Lord’s will? Who he wants us to marry? That is what it was then, for the Israelites, and I dont think that has changed, nor should it.
The bible continually calls us to live according to God’s will, in all aspects of life, esp male/female relationships. Our failure is when we dont chose his way.
The israelites werent wrong to give their daughters in marriage to their sons. We arent wrong for allowing our sons and daughters to make that decision for themselves, esp when they are out on their own.
But choice only opens the door for what “you” personally want, its why Adam fell.
“Obviously, selfless, unconditonal love is much better for marriage, but there’s nothing about that that requires the removal of mutual choice.”
There’s nothing about it, that requires choice either, or lessens it.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: There’s nothing in the passage to indicate that either the man or the woman gets any kind of chance to explain. If they have sex in a populated area, they’re to be killed, period.
You ignored the examples I offered. What if she wanted to scream but he clamped his hand over her mouth hard while he raped her and then beat her unconscious after? She dies. What if he held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her with it if she screamed? No matter, she’s assumed to be guilty and she dies.
“The man is tacitly given approval to have sex with other women, as long as they are not already the property of another man (father or husband.)”
Where? If girls were to be virgins or married, what was left?
Widows. And there were a a fair number of those in a primitive nomadic tribe, as life was hard. They were already not virgins, so there was no more value of purity to take, but they were not married, so there was no husband to dishonor.
It may be a stretch, I admit, but I see no specific rule against a man, even a married man, having sex with a woman in that condition.
Report comment to moderator
Duet 19:15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established.
I didnt ignore your examples. You had to have witnessess to charge a crime. If you cant bring a charge against the girl, she couldnt be convicted. One witness, was not enough.
There is no assumption of guilt. This is the same wording/rule in Num 35:30 and in 2 Corinthians 13:1
In Deut 16 youll see that justice was not be peverted by the judges, no partiality, no hedence to bribes. They were to uphold the law, and to do so with wisdom.
“Widows.”
You were not to take advantage of or mistreat widows or orphans.
A widow could be remarried to a close relative of the deceased husband esp if she had no son so that the husband’s line would continue. Ruth is an example.
They could also return to their father’s house. But when those situations werent available or possible, God still applied several rules so that widows would be provided for.
“It may be a stretch, I admit, but I see no specific rule against a man,”
Exodus 20:14; Deut 5:18
‘You shall not commit adultery.’
I think that’s pretty specific. The conditions dont matter, its all encompassing and God’s original intent and directive that sex was for marriage, between a husband and wife, and no other.
“What if he held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her with it if she screamed?”
Realize in order to be given the death penalty, they would have had to have been caught in the act, which means the witnesses that caught them, would find a knife. Their testimony against each other would not be enough to sentence death in the least.
Ask the girl at Columbine though, and then ask yourself, what is more important, to live according to God’s law and the life to come, or to fear some man with a knife?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: So if two or three people say a man and woman had sex in town, they both die, right? That is what the plain language of the passage I cited, coupled with the passage you cited, means. The assumption is that the woman consented. The passage gives no indication that she’s allowed to stand before a judge and plead that she was overpowered.
Report comment to moderator
They both die if she was pledged to another and consented to the man, with 2 or more witnesses, (that’s not 2nd hand, thats witnessess), and the judge rules against them, then yes.
But have some common sense, also known as wisdom, the lack of direct indication in this passage, does not mean the judge didnt or wouldnt listen to all testimonies. We have several instances such as Solomon’s example of listening to both sides of testimony including women, before issuing judgement. In fact, I think it’s pretty obvious that the girl would have to have spoken her testimony that she was overpowered in order to establish a consent example. There are only two ways this gets in front of a judge, she brings a charge against the man for rape, or they were discovered by someone else who is bringing the charage against them.
You were to value your purity and virginity as highly as marriage itself, more precious than gold or silver. You would have fought with your life to keep it, and to keep someone else from taking it, especially if you were already promised to someone.
Your trying to make mountains out of mole hills though, especially when trying to go on “lack of indication”…please…they werent stupid, judges were to exhibit wisdom and righteous judgement.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!