I say it is meaningless or "it would be better for a man not to be born than to be brought into the world", but Im just curious and somewhat sick of debates at the moment so you can criticize my view I just may not answer and Id like to hear yours

Also another question I have for Atheists is why should I (or anyone else) be moral if there is no God? I wont accept it if it is subjective because subjective morals makes Nazism moral.

Tags: Why, are, bother, monkeys, moral

Views: 169

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That's the one I was referring to. I looked up the conversion for luls. Buying a rape victim costs $13.31 US. That's almost 600 rupees!!! Boo-yah!!!
Exactly. The books of the bible are products of their time. In those days women were treated as property and virginity was "proof" that the product was in brand new condition. In this case the bible is basically saying "You break it, you buy it." This was actually trying to be fair at the time it was written. The fact that women are human beings with all the thought capacity and feelings that men have was never even considered. This is why it's espeically funny to see a "Women's Bible" in a book store. The editor must have had a hell of a time with that.
Does that say rape
Sorry for adding this here, but there was no reply button on the post I wanted to reply to...

Me: Lets also remember that the Bible only has a problem with women having pre-marital sex. Men had no such prohibition...

David: James this isnt true it was just way easier to catch women.

Me:
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21

However a man can rape an unwed woman and his only penalty is paying the father some silver pieces and the wife is forced to marry him.

On several occasions, the 'chosen people' are told to keep the women that 'haven't known a man' for themselves. Advocating rape!

Concubines were allowed.

Lot, had sex with both his daughters (yes, they got him drunk) and they both bore children. Yet in this example and all the others, they did not receive the equal punishment of death, that a woman would receive.
This is the part where David covers his ears, closes his eyes and starts singing to himself "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world..."
James... I admit... I wasn't able to make it through Genesis on my Bible Reading Project without laughing. Given how much incest was done. I'm surprised that they survived at all.

And another thing... David would you please answer this question that still hasn't been answered since Clarence Darrow asked it of William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey Trial? [Skycomet is not expecting O'Connel to know about that trial].

WHERE THE HELL DID CAINS WIFE COME FROM?!! The book of Genesis specifically mentions Cain's marriage, AND he had no sisters [by the record] at the time. So where did she come from?
If you want an answer google Cain's wife Im sure it will come up
//However a man can rape an unwed woman and his only penalty is paying the father some silver pieces and the wife is forced to marry him.//
It does not say that, it refers more to seduction. The passage you quoted from Deuteronomy is stating that she must be stoned for adultery. I have recently learned that my western church tradition about marriage is wrong. There is no such thing as premarital sex, sex is marriage. This sheds some light on some certain issues like that passage in Deut 22:20-21. The woman should be stoned because she has had sex with two men however if she were to have sex with one man she would have to marry him because sex is marriage. This idea makes verse like Exodus 22:16 make more sense "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.". The payment is for the loss of a worker at home so that the families can compensate.

From the same passage 25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.

26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.

27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28"(O)If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

29then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

You can see the difference in forcing a girl and seizing a girl which more closely refers to seduction.
//On several occasions, the 'chosen people' are told to keep the women that 'haven't known a man' for themselves. Advocating rape//
Numbers 31
17"(N)Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately.

18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves

Why does this have to advocate rape? A virgin in this society was probably a young girl as we have discussed elsewhere. Anyways why would God allow Moses to rape these girls if he commanded them not to? Isn't it far more likely to assume that these women who weren't virgins were spared because they could be used as servants or assimilated into the society without causing civil unrest. You can look at this and cry CONTRADICTION but it is far more likely that it is not referring to rape, but to servitude or assimilation which is allowed in God's Law while rape is not.

//Concubines were allowed.//
No they weren't
Solomon had 700 concubines (your response)
That was wrong but God showed him mercy even though His people were not following the law. Thats all I have for now guys. You seem really dedicated to insulting me (someof you, not James) I mean 42 pages is good work, I bet I would feel like crap is I valued your insults and I dont really feel the need to respond to childish insults that are probably based on the insecurity of your beliefs or lack thereof. Not believing in anything is probably pretty unsettling.
How many times have I told you the Bible wasn't written by goat herders, yet you persist in saying that it was. I'm done responding to you.
There is no such thing as premarital sex, sex is marriage.

Come again? If sex is marriage, then how was Job not married to BOTH his daughters? How did men have wives and concubines? And how could men have sex freely without in turn having several wives?

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.". The payment is for the loss of a worker at home so that the families can compensate.

Actually, the dowry isn't to compensate for a lost worker. But rather the fact that using the Biblical narrative, fathers could sell their daughters... as slaves and to arrange marriages. A virgin is simply worth more as a wife than a non-virgin. Sort of like an insurance payment... but terrible and unjust.

You can try and wiggle away from what the Bible is saying about 'keep the women for yourselves'. But it's obvious what it means to just about anyone else here.

What about David's punishment?

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives 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."


OK, so his punishment is to have his wives (yes, more than one) raped by his neighbor, and his child has to die... Sounds more like it's more of a punishment to his waives and child to me. Oh... And if as you said before were true about sex=marriage. Then were his wives also married to his neighbor as well?

You can see the difference in forcing a girl and seizing a girl which more closely refers to seduction.

Except that the word rape is used. Which makes it pretty clear to me.


You seem really dedicated to insulting me (someof you, not James) I mean 42 pages is good work, I bet I would feel like crap is I valued your insults and I dont really feel the need to respond to childish insults that are probably based on the insecurity of your beliefs or lack thereof. Not believing in anything is probably pretty unsettling.


I for one don't condone insults, so I'm pleased that you aren't offended by my rebuttals/questioning. I can assure you that 42 pages of replies isn't due to 'insecurities'. Truth be told, we've heard these questions and arguments time and time again. Personally, I hold factual understanding to a high regard. I want to be informed the best I can and value education as paramount. I'm sure others here feel the same or similar. But when an individual comes around asking things that have been layed to bed long ago, it frustrates some to see the same tiered arguments being used as if they are groundbreaking and sure to 'save us'. It's bewildering. It was once thought that rotting meat created maggots. Later it was realized that fly's landed on the flesh as it lied upon the ground, and layed eggs. They latter hatched and maggots emerged. If someone argued that old explanation to you, I'm sure you would feel the need to correct them. Or if someone thought the 'Mr. Yuck' picture on toxic cleaners simply meant it was a sour drink. I'd consider it prudent to correct that misunderstanding. We fell the same. Only, it's usually regarding falsehoods or misconceptions about Atheism that we are facing. Either that or evidentiary claims. The topic may vary, but correctness and accuracy are important for the present and the future. I feel that only through understanding and knowledge, will the following generations be able to advance beyond our limits and make the world a better place.

Not believing in anything unsettling? Well first off, I wouldn't say I don't believe in anything. I don't believe in a God. But I do believe in love, enjoying life, helping when I can, so on and so forth. Also, I hardly feel unsettled. Once I die, I will cease to be, but that doesn't bother me. I'll have enjoyed this life for what it was and am thankful that I ever lived at all. My body will still go to good use after I'm gone. I for one, am donating my body to medical/scientific research and education at the time of my death. I'll have no use for it, and hopefully it will go to good use and help future generations. I also feel humbled and exhilarated when I look at the night sky. When you understand that atomic kinship we share with the cosmos I find it hard to understand how someone can't find meaning in natural explanations. We are in the universe and the universe is also within us. I think life is more valuable when coming from a process that didn't have to happen as it did, rather than a creation made just for us, and mankind as somehow predetermined to rule it.
//Come again? If sex is marriage, then how was Job not married to BOTH his daughters? How did men have wives and concubines? And how could men have sex freely without in turn having several wives?//
Its called adultery and you have lot and job mixed up, Job had one wife.

//Actually, the dowry isn't to compensate for a lost worker. But rather the fact that using the Biblical narrative, fathers could sell their daughters... as slaves and to arrange marriages. A virgin is simply worth more as a wife than a non-virgin. Sort of like an insurance payment... but terrible and unjust.//
Can you prove any of this, I've seen no evidence for such a thing, thats just an opinion. I also wonder how you decide what is just and unjust, who are you to decide what justice is and isn't.

//OK, so his punishment is to have his wives (yes, more than one) raped by his neighbor, and his child has to die... Sounds more like it's more of a punishment to his waives and child to me. Oh... And if as you said before were true about sex=marriage. Then were his wives also married to his neighbor as well//
By whose definitions were they wives, not by God's, but by the culture of that area. God spoke to David in terms he could understand and no they weren't married they would be committing adultery, just because sex=marriage doesn't mean that adultery doesn't happen. That is essentially what adultery is having sex with multiple people.



//Except that the word rape is used. Which makes it pretty clear to me.//
Did you not read my post, it used the word seize, that is the literal word for word translation of the Hebrew word. If you want me to I could pull it up. I believe the use of the word rape is not the same as seize, maybe you should re-read my quotation.

// I for one don't condone insults, so I'm pleased that you aren't offended by my rebuttals/questioning. I can assure you that 42 pages of replies isn't due to 'insecurities'.//
Most of the insults and belittling seem that way to me. I will concede that maybe half of the replies are not insulting or belittling to me but the others are and that shows me something.

//Truth be told, we've heard these questions and arguments time and time again.//
I completely understand because I have heard everyone of these criticisms and insults before

//Personally, I hold factual understanding to a high regard. I want to be informed the best I can and value education as paramount. I'm sure others here feel the same or similar. But when an individual comes around asking things that have been layed to bed long ago, it frustrates some to see the same tiered arguments being used as if they are groundbreaking and sure to 'save us'.//
I am sorry if I gave you that impression, I'm just hoping to challenge some of your ideas. I hold the belief that atheists are denying/suppressing their intuitive knowledge of God, of course you are inclined to disagree and maybe you even find that belief offensive but its honest. My hope is to awaken that suppressed intuition that might lead you on the path to God or maybe lead the way to something like that happening. I know I am probably not going to convert any atheists on an atheist forum where people get together for the sole purpose of talking about atheism, but I also know God is able to change the heart of anyone.

//It's bewildering. It was once thought that rotting meat created maggots. Later it was realized that fly's landed on the flesh as it lied upon the ground, and layed eggs. They latter hatched and maggots emerged. If someone argued that old explanation to you, I'm sure you would feel the need to correct them. Or if someone thought the 'Mr. Yuck' picture on toxic cleaners simply meant it was a sour drink. I'd consider it prudent to correct that misunderstanding. We fell the same. Only, it's usually regarding falsehoods or misconceptions about Atheism that we are facing. Either that or evidentiary claims. The topic may vary, but correctness and accuracy are important for the present and the future. I feel that only through understanding and knowledge, will the following generations be able to advance beyond our limits and make the world a better place.//

I think that you have a very high view of modern understanding, I hold the view that it will change and fall like all other understandings before it.

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service