Coming out as an Agnostic

[Joseph007]

I read them. Not in their entirety because I was looking for specific subjects.

What specific subject are you looking to study?


And which link was not working?  I just checked them all again and was able to access them all.

I found an article in the Apologetics Press by doing a word search on "Rape". The article was written by Kyle Butt but was a pathetic attempt to justify Deut 21:10-14. I will explain my reasons for saying pathetic attempt. 

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

I posed the following hypothetical situation to a few people. Three are Christian people and 2 are somewhat agnostic but had a Christian upbringing.  I supposed that a Muslim person kidnapped their female cousin or their sister and brought them to his homeland if Pakistan. The female was then forced into marriage. I asked if the sexual contact following marriage was consensual or nonconsensual. Everyone responded that it was nonconsensual and rape. Mr Butt would have you believe and accept that because they were married the physical relationship is not rape. I disagree.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

I found an article in the Apologetics Press by doing a word search on "Rape". The article was written by Kyle Butt but was a pathetic attempt to justify Deut 21:10-14. I will explain my reasons for saying pathetic attempt. 

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

I posed the following hypothetical situation to a few people. Three are Christian people and 2 are somewhat agnostic but had a Christian upbringing.  I supposed that a Muslim person kidnapped their female cousin or their sister and brought them to his homeland if Pakistan. The female was then forced into marriage. I asked if the sexual contact following marriage was consensual or nonconsensual. Everyone responded that it was nonconsensual and rape. Mr Butt would have you believe and accept that because they were married the physical relationship is not rape. I disagree.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

In your analogy you use the word "kidnap".  Do you believe that the context of the passage in question is an authorization to "kidnap"? 

Do you believe that in a culture and time when war would leave women and children vulnerable to further severe exploitation that it could be humane to make sure their chance for survival was increased by incorporating/assimilating them into your own culture rather than leaving them to fair for themselves?

 

[Joseph007]

I found an article in the Apologetics Press by doing a word search on "Rape". The article was written by Kyle Butt but was a pathetic attempt to justify Deut 21:10-14. I will explain my reasons for saying pathetic attempt. 

http://ap.lanexdev.com/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=2333

I posed the following hypothetical situation to a few people. Three are Christian people and 2 are somewhat agnostic but had a Christian upbringing.  I supposed that a Muslim person kidnapped their female cousin or their sister and brought them to his homeland if Pakistan. The female was then forced into marriage. I asked if the sexual contact following marriage was consensual or nonconsensual. Everyone responded that it was nonconsensual and rape. Mr Butt would have you believe and accept that because they were married the physical relationship is not rape. I disagree.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

In your analogy you use the word "kidnap".  Do you believe that the context of the passage in question is an authorization to "kidnap"? 

Do you believe that in a culture and time when war would leave women and children vulnerable to further severe exploitation that it could be humane to make sure their chance for survival was increased by incorporating/assimilating them into your own culture rather than leaving them to fair for themselves?

The KJV uses the phrase "taken them captive" and "seest among the captives". Captive certainly implies a person that is taken by force. That fits the definition of being kidnapped. When Boko Haram did it recently in Africa it was an atrocity and war crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/they-were-freed-from-boko-harams-rape-camps-but-their-nightmare-isnt-over/2016/04/03/dbf2aab0-e54f-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html?utm_term=.6761c488c4b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-chibok-girls.html

You'll have to copy and paste. I don't know how to do the link from my phone.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ALAYMAN]

The KJV uses the phrase "taken them captive" and "seest among the captives". Captive certainly implies a person that is taken by force. That fits the definition of being kidnapped. When Boko Haram did it recently in Africa it was an atrocity and war crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/they-were-freed-from-boko-harams-rape-camps-but-their-nightmare-isnt-over/2016/04/03/dbf2aab0-e54f-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html?utm_term=.6761c488c4b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-chibok-girls.html

You'll have to copy and paste. I don't know how to do the link from my phone.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The essence of my question regarding the context dealt with whether it was more humane to assimilate those who were vulnerable into the Hebrew culture, or leave them to fair for themselves.  Do you understand that in ancient cultures women and children would be considered as easy targets for other tribes and nations who would conquer and destroy them?  Should it not be considered as possibly a more moral option to honor them within the structure and protection of marriage rather than leave them behind?

And motive is extremely important for consideration here.  In the case of the recent kidnappings you refer to it might be very fair to consider that these girls were targeted for the very purpose of making them sex slaves.  Do you think that was the God of the Bible's intent in commanding the Israelites to conquer Canaan and such people?  If so, could you prove it exegetically from Scripture?

Joseph, thanks for the civil conversation about these tough subjects, I appreciate it.  I have to work for a bit now, but will check back later so we can resume dialogue.

 

[Joseph007]

The KJV uses the phrase "taken them captive" and "seest among the captives". Captive certainly implies a person that is taken by force. That fits the definition of being kidnapped. When Boko Haram did it recently in Africa it was an atrocity and war crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/they-were-freed-from-boko-harams-rape-camps-but-their-nightmare-isnt-over/2016/04/03/dbf2aab0-e54f-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html?utm_term=.6761c488c4b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-chibok-girls.html

You'll have to copy and paste. I don't know how to do the link from my phone.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The essence of my question regarding the context dealt with whether it was more humane to assimilate those who were vulnerable into the Hebrew culture, or leave them to fair for themselves.  Do you understand that in ancient cultures women and children would be considered as easy targets for other tribes and nations who would conquer and destroy them?  Should it not be considered as possibly a more moral option to honor them within the structure and protection of marriage rather than leave them behind?

And motive is extremely important for consideration here.  In the case of the recent kidnappings you refer to it might be very fair to consider that these girls were targeted for the very purpose of making them sex slaves.  Do you think that was the God of the Bible's intent in commanding the Israelites to conquer Canaan and such people?  If so, could you prove it exegetically from Scripture?

Joseph, thanks for the civil conversation about these tough subjects, I appreciate it.  I have to work for a bit now, but will check back later so we can resume dialogue.

You're now arguing humanity? When did the Israelites ever consider humanitarian reasons for anything? They routinely, according to the Bible, slaughtered every living thing in the country they captured. This included men, women, pregnant women and children. I find it difficult to believe that the captivity was for humanitarian reasons. An argument against that is in the passage itself, "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;"  The reason was a sexual desire for a beautiful woman whether she was willing or not. It doesn't take into consideration at all what the captive woman wants only what the captor wants...a beautiful woman to have relations with. Of course, marriage first. Wouldn't want to be guilty adultery.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Route_70]

You're now arguing humanity? When did the Israelites ever consider humanitarian reasons for anything? They routinely, according to the Bible, slaughtered every living thing in the country they captured. This included men, women, pregnant women and children. I find it difficult to believe that the captivity was for humanitarian reasons. An argument against that is in the passage itself, "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;"  The reason was a sexual desire for a beautiful woman whether she was willing or not. It doesn't take into consideration at all what the captive woman wants only what the captor wants...a beautiful woman to have relations with. Of course, marriage first. Wouldn't want to be guilty adultery.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

And then there are those among today's Believers who exonerate the State of Israel, even though they, just as their so-called forefathers before them, have invaded another's land, taken possession, and driven out its inhabitants all in the name of fulfilling Bible prophecy.

What a crock, eh!?

There is no justification, moral or otherwise, for the wanton murder, rape, and pillaging done in the name of a Holy God.  We exonerate Israel; then we villify Muslims.

 

[Joseph007]

The KJV uses the phrase "taken them captive" and "seest among the captives". Captive certainly implies a person that is taken by force. That fits the definition of being kidnapped. When Boko Haram did it recently in Africa it was an atrocity and war crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/they-were-freed-from-boko-harams-rape-camps-but-their-nightmare-isnt-over/2016/04/03/dbf2aab0-e54f-11e5-a9ce-681055c7a05f_story.html?utm_term=.6761c488c4b7

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-chibok-girls.html

You'll have to copy and paste. I don't know how to do the link from my phone.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

The essence of my question regarding the context dealt with whether it was more humane to assimilate those who were vulnerable into the Hebrew culture, or leave them to fair for themselves.  Do you understand that in ancient cultures women and children would be considered as easy targets for other tribes and nations who would conquer and destroy them?  Should it not be considered as possibly a more moral option to honor them within the structure and protection of marriage rather than leave them behind?

And motive is extremely important for consideration here.  In the case of the recent kidnappings you refer to it might be very fair to consider that these girls were targeted for the very purpose of making them sex slaves.  Do you think that was the God of the Bible's intent in commanding the Israelites to conquer Canaan and such people?  If so, could you prove it exegetically from Scripture?

Joseph, thanks for the civil conversation about these tough subjects, I appreciate it.  I have to work for a bit now, but will check back later so we can resume dialogue.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+21%3A10-24&version=KJV

These verses describe killing everyone except virgins for forced marriages.

20 Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards;
21 And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin.

But they were still short on wives so they hid in the vineyards and captured more women to force into marriage. These acts were never condemned or punished by God. Don't gather sticks on the Sabbath or you will be put to death. Kidnap women for forced marriage Boko Haram style and you're good to go.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[FSSL]

There is no justification, moral or otherwise, for the wanton murder, rape, and pillaging done in the name of a Holy God.  We exonerate Israel; then we villify Muslims.

Finding it hard to stick to the subject? Desperate post!

 

[ALAYMAN]

You're now arguing humanity? When did the Israelites ever consider humanitarian reasons for anything?

Your indictment of a whole group of all people for all time is a gross mischaracterization of the Israelites as a whole, and I think you know that but would rather ignore the stories of mercy and grace shown to those who attacked them relentlessly.  There are several factors to consider hermeneutically (ie, not all of the Bible is prescriptive but sometimes descriptive) but I'll come back to the "marriage by capture" narrative in a bit more detail after while. In the meantime let me play the devil's advocate with your logic of God's (im)morality.  If indeed that the Bible is full of inconsistencies, atrocities, and downright immoral injunctions because it is written by man and there is no God, then who's morality are your borrowing from to make your sweeping condemnation of rape, stoning, etc?  If there is no God then morality is merely one man's preference over another, and what makes you so haughty to think you have the right to define somebody else's morality?

 

[Joseph007]

You're now arguing humanity? When did the Israelites ever consider humanitarian reasons for anything?

Your indictment of a whole group of all people for all time is a gross mischaracterization of the Israelites as a whole, and I think you know that but would rather ignore the stories of mercy and grace shown to those who attacked them relentlessly.  There are several factors to consider hermeneutically (ie, not all of the Bible is prescriptive but sometimes descriptive) but I'll come back to the "marriage by capture" narrative in a bit more detail after while. In the meantime let me play the devil's advocate with your logic of God's (im)morality.  If indeed that the Bible is full of inconsistencies, atrocities, and downright immoral injunctions because it is written by man and there is no God, then who's morality are your borrowing from to make your sweeping condemnation of rape, stoning, etc?  If there is no God then morality is merely one man's preference over another, and what makes you so haughty to think you have the right to define somebody else's morality?

I could have been more clear. I was referring to the Israelite tales of the Old Testament. I definitely don't believe that about modern Israelis.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Smellin Coffee]

You're now arguing humanity? When did the Israelites ever consider humanitarian reasons for anything? They routinely, according to the Bible, slaughtered every living thing in the country they captured. This included men, women, pregnant women and children. I find it difficult to believe that the captivity was for humanitarian reasons. An argument against that is in the passage itself, "And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;"  The reason was a sexual desire for a beautiful woman whether she was willing or not. It doesn't take into consideration at all what the captive woman wants only what the captor wants...a beautiful woman to have relations with. Of course, marriage first. Wouldn't want to be guilty adultery.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

And then there are those among today's Believers who exonerate the State of Israel, even though they, just as their so-called forefathers before them, have invaded another's land, taken possession, and driven out its inhabitants all in the name of fulfilling Bible prophecy.

What a crock, eh!?

There is no justification, moral or otherwise, for the wanton murder, rape, and pillaging done in the name of a Holy God.  We exonerate Israel; then we villify Muslims.

No different than Manifest Destiny by white Christians in our country. To murder, rape, kidnap, steal and control is in the genes of Western Evangelicalism. Hence, the unmitigated support for a sexual predator for President and voting for a pedophile for the Senate. And a poster in this thread is justifying kidnapping and war crimes, labeling them as "protective services" and a loving action toward the victims.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I could have been more clear. I was referring to the Israelite tales of the Old Testament. I definitely don't believe that about modern Israelis.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I wasn't referring to the Israelites of our contemporary times. That was referenced by a different poster who is hijacking the thread.  I was talking about the stereotyping you are doing of the whole of Israel's history based on a only a segment of the history of its people.

And the latter part of my post to you dealt with how you form an objective moral compass in the light of your atheistic/agnostic views.  How do you determine that rape is wrong objectively?

 

[ALAYMAN]

...And a poster in this thread is justifying kidnapping and war crimes, labeling them as "protective services" and a loving action toward the victims.

Yes, I am saying that if you actually want to contextualize things properly (which should occur to you immediately since you like to relativize morality more than the average bear) that it is possible that to ensure during times of war that a female was assimilated into the Jewish culture of the Ancient middle East would indeed potentially be for her greater good.  You deny that?

And by the way, there are various other complex factors to consider in the proper hermeneutical approach of ancient writings (or any narrative text).

 

[Route_70]

I was referring to the Israelite tales of the Old Testament. I definitely don't believe that about modern Israelis.

I wasn't referring to the Israelites of our contemporary times. That was referenced by a different poster who is hijacking the thread.

The Hebrew Children invaded someone else's land, killing and pillaging; destroying property and houses not belonging to them; supplanting someone else's land -- all in the name of God.

Modern day Israelies have done some of the same -- all in the name of God.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The Hebrew Children invaded someone else's land, killing and pillaging; destroying property and houses not belonging to them; supplanting someone else's land -- all in the name of God.

Modern day Israelies have done some of the same -- all in the name of God.

Are you a pacifist?

 

[Ransom]

No different than Manifest Destiny by white Christians in our country. To murder, rape, kidnap, steal and control is in the genes of Western Evangelicalism.

Exhibit B.

Don't you ever tire of basically being a chronic liar?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No different than Manifest Destiny by white Christians in our country. To murder, rape, kidnap, steal and control is in the genes of Western Evangelicalism.

Exhibit B.

Don't you ever tire of basically being a chronic liar?

Yeah, I forgot to add slavery and lynching.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

No different than Manifest Destiny by white Christians in our country. To murder, rape, kidnap, steal and control is in the genes of Western Evangelicalism.

Exhibit B.

Don't you ever tire of basically being a chronic liar?

Chronic liar!?
Add that to his list of accomplishments:
Founder and arbiter of his own religion.
Keeper of his own, personal canon of positive reinforcement.
Department chair of the Elmer Fudd School of Theology and Astrology.
Designer of the Michael Brown ?Hands Up Dont Shoot Because Only Black Lives Matter? Souvenir  Whoopi Cushion.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

No different than Manifest Destiny by white Christians in our country. To murder, rape, kidnap, steal and control is in the genes of Western Evangelicalism.

Exhibit B.

Don't you ever tire of basically being a chronic liar?

Chronic liar!?
Add that to his list of accomplishments:
Founder and arbiter of his own religion.
Keeper of his own, personal canon of positive reinforcement.
Department chair of the Elmer Fudd School of Theology and Astrology.
Designer of the Michael Brown ?Hands Up Dont Shoot Because Only Black Lives Matter? Souvenir  Whoopi Cushion.

Man, do I LOOOOVE being labeled by the fundy crowd!

 

[Walt]

Why is agnosticism and atheism so cruel?

According to the Believers on this forum, an all-mighty, capable of doing anything, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-loving God has so arranged things in this world that some people are born, destined to spend an eternity in a lake of fire, suffering unimaginable torture.  Why is this God so cruel?

People in the lake of fire want nothing to do with God.  God is giving them what they want.  In this present world, He sends rain on the good and the bad, regardless of whether they thank Him for it or not.  The lake of fire may be no more than the "normal" state of things if God is leaving people alone.