Genesis and Antis

[jpholding]

I see The Pixie is as ignorant as he usually is.

I'll let AP handle this overall, but for fun, I'll just slap down on one of my favorite issues...

It shows women are generally considered not even important enough to warrant being named.

Uh, no. It shows that women were too well respected to be just put on "front street". In this honor-shame society, women were accorded primary rights over the private sphere. Unless they crossed over into the public sphere, naming them was considered a violation of that privilege and right.

For that reason, named women were either public figures like Ruth and Esther (named because of very good things they did), or else figures like prostitutes (named because of very bad things they did).

It's always amusing when a cultural bigot like The Pixie toddles out such self-righteous judgments based on his lack of serious education and use of sources like "evilbible.com".

[Apologiaphoenix]

It is a conclusion (albeit a metaphysical one if you like) we can draw from the findings of science.

And I have no problem with a lesser field supporting a greater field.

My claim is that the vast majority of humans do not deserve hell. The claim of Christianity is that by default we all do. That is a big difference.

They don't? Upon what basis do you make this decision? How do you decide who does and doesn't deserve Hell?

Yes, that guy is your superior. He is not your superior in his humanity, only in the workplace. Because he is only your boss in the workplace.

However, the Bible makes a general claim for all humanity; women will obey, the husband is superior. Can you see a difference here?

No. It's the same principle and that obedience is also between husband and wife and it depends on what kind of superior one is. One can be a jerk superior or one can be a joyous superior. My saying is that a man is the king of his castle. I agree. His wife gets treated like a queen then.

Sorry, I mean not done as in not the done thing. Yes, it probably happened, but it was not socially acceptable, and more importantly in this context, it was not sanctioned by the Bible.

That would also be because the sons would often sell themselves. The daughter would be spoken for by the father. Again, that means the daughter would receive special care and treatment. Also, the daughter could unite two families in a way the son couldn't.

Do you mean this:

Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

I read it somewhat differently. This is not about selling sons at all; such a practice is not condoned. This is comparing a Hebrew girl/woman (who was sold by her father) to any other slave in her owner's household. It is saying that such a slave is to be treated differently, and while the other slaves go work in the fields, she is to be put to work in the house (and specifically the bedroom...).

Actually, she is to be treated like a wife and not like a servant and we later find that if the master marries another, he is not to disregard her conjugal rights. So yes, the woman is treated differently. She becomes a member of the family instead of being just a servant.

The passage is focused on ritual cleanliness. It may be a consequence that the daughter gets more attention, but the verse is not there to ensure that happens (and thus your argument looks like spin to me). The verse is saying that a woman who has given birth to a girl is even more dirty than one who has given birth to a girl.

What is spin about it? That's what happens. The giving of extra time off would be a blessing for the mother and the girl both.

The man is unclean until evening (Lev 15:16-18). If a women menstrates, she is unclean a week.

It also lasts for a longer period of time. This would be continuous bleeding and blood would stay on objects a lot longer than semen would, and be a lot harder to remove.

Is that what you call similar?

Yes

My bad. The KJV has quite a different translation, that includes "she shall be scourged", which is what I was founding my argument on. Looks like yours is the better translation.

Then we move on past this one.

The men were considered important. The women were not.

I refer to JPH's answer below.

Of course it did. The men were considered important. The women were not.

This doesn't follow anyway. When Allie and I got married, she went from being Allie Licona to Allie Peters. She took my name. I did not take hers. Does that mean our society sees her as less important since she takes the man's name?

Sure. but can you really say the number is comparable with a straight face? Can you really claim women are held in the same light?

Sure can.

The article in CounterPunch says:

"The Christian right’s sex war in sub-Sahara Africa is being waged on two fronts - against homosexuality and a woman’s right to control her pregnancy."

It is not saying Christianity is anti-sex, but rather homophobic and anti-birth-control.

Which is often seen as anti-sex, and I am not anti-birth control. I also don't buy into this homophobia term. You can not approve of something without being afraid of it.

With regards to the first, yes, there the claim is more general that Christianity is anti-sex. What is interesting in that article is how comprehensively the author argues that that is the case. So it seems that some people do think Christianity is anti-sex and they have good reason to do so.

Yes. My claim is also a general claim based on what I encounter when I debate people.

Wow. So you are saying that if you were not a Christian, you would rape any woman you thought you could get away with?

No. I'm saying we all would. WHen you look at a woman and look at her to lust, you're pretty much saying "I would really love to have sex with that woman?" Well what's stopping you? Remove enough barriers, such as how you will be seen in public or personal feelings of guilt and what have you, and the reality is that that is the attitude that will lead to rape and/or adultery. Remember, sleeping with a woman not your wife is not necessarily rape. Even if she agrees, a man is still guilty of adultery.

There are about 5 billion people on this planet who are not Christians, half of them male, and the vast majority are not rapists. That may surprise you.

I never said anything about this applying to just Christians. Jesus isn't talking to Christians in the text. He's speaking about the universal human condition. What keeps you from sleeping with someone not your wife? Even if you have a personal knowledge it's wrong, that can be enough to stop you, but if you removed that, would it stop you?

The reality is that the vast majority of men can look at a girl without then raping her.

The reality is this is a straw man of what I'm arguing.

I would rather take Jesus' own words over the opinion of a man of unknown bias.

You mean, you would rather have your own interpretation of Jesus's words over someone who is actually a scholar in the field.

27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Reads to me like God thinks the two are equivalent in their sin.

Doesn't read that way to me. Adultery in the heart is not the same as adultery in the real world.

Yeah, my bad. Everyone has "a lot of kinks to work out" of them, so everyone deserves to go to hell. That is the message of Chistianity. Hence the meme.

We don't all have just kinks. We have moral failures. We all know it as well. No one thinks they live perfectly as they ought. All this is saying is "I don't like hearing I'm fallen, therefore it's not true."

Not sure what you mean here.

A guilty conscience is an idea of the modern world more than anything else. The ancients dealt with shame more. People can say "Jesus gave forgiveness." So did most every other system. The Jews for instance already had a system set up and it had worked for well over a thousand years.

It is a big feature of the OT too. How many prophets told the Jews they were sinful, and whatever calamity of the day was God punishing them? Something that annoyed the religious leaders when Jesus was alive was that he would forgive sins. That was strictly God's remit. The priests' job was to convince everyone they were sinful, and then God's role was to forgive - if you worshiped dutifully.

The priests didn't have to. The people already knew it. Jesus never denied the reality of sin, but He treated grace as the bigger reality. The big feature in the OT is the covenant with YHWH and how He increasingly reaches out to His people.

Sure the "center proclamation" is the resurrection; does that mean it is the only message in the NT? Of course not!

It would be nice to know where I said it was.

What are valid reasons then?

Adultery is a definite one. It's a great unfaithfulness to the covenant. Along those lines I would also consider abuse to the spouse or children as well.

And therefore everyone must do that too? Why?

How about because it's true and it works? We can look at statistics from places like the CDC and see how many STDs are being spread. I wonder how many of these we could stop if we just had a "one-per customer" rule.

You are happy in your marriage, therefore gay people are not allowed to have sex with each other? Do please talk me through the logic here.

Who's stopping them from doing that?

Let us remember that the Biblical punishment for adultery and gay sex was death.

In theocratic Israel identified as a nation in covenant with YHWH and this would be a covenant they would agree to.

Noctural emissions are dirty.

No. This is just a culture that places emphasis on ritual purity.

Genitals are shameful (Jer 13:26).

This is like saying if a woman doesn't want to walk out in public topless, that means she's ashamed of her body. The nudity here would be putting the woman on display as an object.

Salvation is for those "who have not defiled themselves with women" (Rev. 14:4).

REvelation is a symbolic book. The purity here is not meant to be literal sex but rather spiritual adultery. The 144,000 have remained faithful to YHWH.

Ideally, according to Paul "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", marriage is merely the lesser evil.

When is it not good? For the matters you wrote to me. What were those matters? Paul doesn't say. It could be some were saying because of the famine, it would be good to abstain from touching a woman, but Paul then goes on to say that husband and wife owe themselves to each other. Not just the woman to the man, but the man to the woman.

It sadly looks like a lot of your argument is "This offends me" or "I don't understand why this would happen," which really, you need a lot more than that.

[The Pixie]

I see The Pixie is as ignorant as he usually is.

I'll let AP handle this overall, but for fun, I'll just slap down on one of my favorite issues...



Uh, no. It shows that women were too well respected to be just put on "front street". In this honor-shame society, women were accorded primary rights over the private sphere. Unless they crossed over into the public sphere, naming them was considered a violation of that privilege and right.

For that reason, named women were either public figures like Ruth and Esther (named because of very good things they did), or else figures like prostitutes (named because of very bad things they did).

It's always amusing when a cultural bigot like The Pixie toddles out such self-righteous judgments based on his lack of serious education and use of sources like "evilbible.com".

Thanks JP for putting your own spin on the Bible. If I believed a word of this, I might bother to respond properly.

[The Pixie]

And I have no problem with a lesser field supporting a greater field.

Good. So what was your point again?

They don't? Upon what basis do you make this decision? How do you decide who does and doesn't deserve Hell?

I live in a society of people. I talk to people. I live amongst people. I interact with people on a daily basis. Most of them are decent folk.

Therefore I conclude that at least some of them do not deserve hell.

What makes you believe that everyone of them deserves hell? Do you have children? If so, do please detail why your new-born child deserved to go to hell.

And then we can discuss the meme on that card the girl was holding up.

No. It's the same principle and that obedience is also between husband and wife and it depends on what kind of superior one is. One can be a jerk superior or one can be a joyous superior. My saying is that a man is the king of his castle. I agree. His wife gets treated like a queen then.

I thought we were talking about the Bible, not your specific marriage.

Okay, yes, the principle is the same in that it refers to a specific situation, i.e., within marriage as opposed to within the workplace. However, it is saying the wife will obey the husband. It is wonderful that you treat your wife well. But the Bible is clear; the wife obeys the man. That makes the man the superior, the boss. Just like you obey your superior or your boss at work, the wife obeys her superior in the marriage.

Now do please explain why this arrangement is equal to husband and wife.

That would also be because the sons would often sell themselves. The daughter would be spoken for by the father. Again, that means the daughter would receive special care and treatment. Also, the daughter could unite two families in a way the son couldn't.

Right. Sons are considered responsible for themselves, daughters are not.

Actually, she is to be treated like a wife and not like a servant and we later find that if the master marries another, he is not to disregard her conjugal rights. So yes, the woman is treated differently. She becomes a member of the family instead of being just a servant.

Well, yes, but Hebrew slaves were treated differently to gentile slaves. Male Hebrew slaves would be freed in Jubilee years.

This does not change the fact that the Bible has rules for selling daughters.

What is spin about it? That's what happens. The giving of extra time off would be a blessing for the mother and the girl both.

It is spin because you are dodging the intent of the passage.

It also lasts for a longer period of time. This would be continuous bleeding and blood would stay on objects a lot longer than semen would, and be a lot harder to remove.

And the blood of a woman is ritually dirty.

Was there the same rule for men if they were covered in blood from battle? No. Such blood was honourable! Not like the disgusting blood of dirty women.

This doesn't follow anyway. When Allie and I got married, she went from being Allie Licona to Allie Peters. She took my name. I did not take hers. Does that mean our society sees her as less important since she takes the man's name?

The tradition dates from when women were seen as less important. I am having difficulty believing you were not aware of that. You do know that women have only been allowed to vote for about a century right?

Which is often seen as anti-sex, and I am not anti-birth control.

So you read it as saying Christianity is anti-sex. Perhaps this is an issue with your mindset.

Wow. So you are saying that if you were not a Christian, you would rape any woman you thought you could get away with?

No. I'm saying we all would.

Thus we can see that atheists are more moral than Christians. Despite not having God peering over my shoulder, despite no threat of hell, and no promise of heaven, I still do not rape women. And that is so of the vast majority of atheist men. So the evidence indicates you are wrong in your opinion.

While I am prepared to take your word that you would be a rapist if you were not a Christian, it would seem you are wrong about other men.

In fact, no. I will not take your word even on that. Christianity has convinced you you would be rapist, but that is how it controls. That is part of the meme on the card the girl held. Christianity works so hard to convince you how depraved you are, and what a great success story you are. It has convinced you that if not for your religion you would be a rapist.

Imagine if that card the girl held had had the word "Rapist" on the left side. Would you have been shocked? Or would you have agreed?

WHen you look at a woman and look at her to lust, you're pretty much saying "I would really love to have sex with that woman?" Well what's stopping you? Remove enough barriers, such as how you will be seen in public or personal feelings of guilt and what have you, and the reality is that that is the attitude that will lead to rape and/or adultery. Remember, sleeping with a woman not your wife is not necessarily rape. Even if she agrees, a man is still guilty of adultery.

It is only adultery if one of you is married.

What stops us is morality. This may be news to you, AP, but morality is not exclusive to Christians.

I never said anything about this applying to just Christians. Jesus isn't talking to Christians in the text. He's speaking about the universal human condition. What keeps you from sleeping with someone not your wife? Even if you have a personal knowledge it's wrong, that can be enough to stop you, but if you removed that, would it stop you?

I never thought you meant just Christians. That was my point. Over two billion men manage not to be rapists without following Jesus command. Therefore the command is unnecessary, and is just Christianity trying to control what you think, trying to convince you that you are a pervert, trying to convince you that without it, you would be a rapist.

The reality is this is a straw man of what I'm arguing.

Then I do not know what your point is.

You mean, you would rather have your own interpretation of Jesus's words over someone who is actually a scholar in the field.

Can you assure me that Willard is a neutral, unbiased scholar?

Doesn't read that way to me. Adultery in the heart is not the same as adultery in the real world.

For the sake of the argument, let us say you are right then.

Jesus is still clear that thinking about sex with a woman other than your wife is a sin, if a lesser sin than the actual act. Would you agree with that?

We don't all have just kinks. We have moral failures. We all know it as well. No one thinks they live perfectly as they ought.

Do we all have moral failures? Sure.

Enough to deserve hell? Even new born children?

All this is saying is "I don't like hearing I'm fallen, therefore it's not true."

Not quite.

The argument here is that the Christian view does not make sense. There are lots of very different people, some with huge moral fails, and some who lead good lives, and just a few kinks. It makes no sense to say that all of them deserve hell. Such a system is not just, as we commonly understand the word.

If you think about our legal system, people are punished for specific crimes, and the severity of the punishment is matched to the severity of the crime. Now compare to the system God supposedly devised. We are all guilty, we all deserve hell. It seems to me that man's system is vastly more just than God's, and yet God is supposed to be all-knowing and perfectly justice. Oh, and infinitely merciful - at least for the grovelling few.

A guilty conscience is an idea of the modern world more than anything else. The ancients dealt with shame more. People can say "Jesus gave forgiveness." So did most every other system. The Jews for instance already had a system set up and it had worked for well over a thousand years.

Not sure what your point is. I indicated in an earlier post that the religion convincing you you were fallen and needed God to forgive pre-dated Jesus. Indeed, you quoted me doing just that straight after this.

The priests didn't have to. The people already knew it. Jesus never denied the reality of sin, but He treated grace as the bigger reality. The big feature in the OT is the covenant with YHWH and how He increasingly reaches out to His people.

Not sure what your point is. Do you think the ancient Hebrews believed they were sinful without priests to tell them what was a sin and what was not? A sin is a transgression against God. I appreciate there may well have been already concepts about shame in the culture. So what?

That's a more modern way. It's not really the way that I see in Scripture done. Sure, forgiveness is talked about, but the center proclamation is the resurrection.

Sure the "center proclamation" is the resurrection; does that mean it is the only message in the NT? Of course not!

It would be nice to know where I said it was.

Did I misunderstand you? What is the relevance of "the center proclamation is the resurrection" to our discussion?

You seemed to be downplaying the message of forgiveness in the NT; can we agree then that forgiveness is an important part of the NT, even if it is not the primary message?

Adultery is a definite one. It's a great unfaithfulness to the covenant. Along those lines I would also consider abuse to the spouse or children as well.

Can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children? Or is this just your opinion?

It is good that you have that opinion, but if it is not in the Bible, then it is no more valid than my opinion on morality, and I am just an atheist.

How about because it's true and it works? We can look at statistics from places like the CDC and see how many STDs are being spread. I wonder how many of these we could stop if we just had a "one-per customer" rule.

Or better sex education to instill the importance of using condoms.

Who's stopping them from doing that?

A lot of Christians.

Surely you are aware of this?

In theocratic Israel identified as a nation in covenant with YHWH and this would be a covenant they would agree to.

So?

Do you think God wants gays and adulters stoned to death? If not, why did he make it part of the covenant?

No. This is just a culture that places emphasis on ritual purity.

Do you believe God thinks you are unclean if you have a nocturnal emission? If not, was this something the ancient Hebrews just made up? Is it only Jews that are unclean in God's eyes if they have a nocturnal emission?

REvelation is a symbolic book. The purity here is not meant to be literal sex but rather spiritual adultery. The 144,000 have remained faithful to YHWH.

I appreciate Revelation uses a lot of symbolism. In this verse, does "defiled themselves with women" actually symbolise following another god?

Rev 14:4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.

If so, then the Bible is drawing an analogy between having sex and worshiping heathen gods. Is that right? Can you see where this is going?

When is it not good? For the matters you wrote to me. What were those matters? Paul doesn't say. It could be some were saying because of the famine, it would be good to abstain from touching a woman, but Paul then goes on to say that husband and wife owe themselves to each other. Not just the woman to the man, but the man to the woman.

Let us see the full text:

1 Cor 7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you[b] to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

To me, Paul is saying that sex is bad, but human nature being what it is, it is better to have it within marriage than to try to abstain and fail. You suggest maybe the "matters about which you wrote" could be a famine. Are you suggesting that the city of Corinth was suffering a famine, and the church there wrote to Paul (who was Epheus, 180 miles away; a round trip of about two weeks?) to ask about whether sex was appropriate during a time of famine? And Paul writes back to say it is best if you abstain from sex during a famine, but hey guy, once that famine is over, you do your spouse like there is no tomorrow. Is that what you are suggesting?

Let us see each verse. He starts by saying ideally, you should abstain from sex, in verse 1, but in verse 2 recognises this is difficult, so recommends marriage (by the way, Paul here shows a lot of support for sexual equality; good for him). Verses 3, 4 and 5 are about couples having sex within marriage.

Verse 6 is interesting. Paul was presumably celibate, so in verse 6 he is recommending the same for everyone, but again concedes that will not work for all in verse 7.

Verses 8 and 9 is about single people, and he recommends they get married, so they can have sex, and thus avoid consuming lusts. I find that an odd instruction for people in a time of famine. What do you think his reasoning is there, AP? I would have guessed it would be better to wait until the famine was over, so the wedding celebrations can be done properly.

Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

[The Pixie]

AP

I am having difficult reconciling this:

So you are saying that if you were not a Christian, you would rape any woman you thought you could get away with?

No. I'm saying we all would.

With this from your latest blog entry:

Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position.

https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...odless-part-1/

Can you clarify?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Good. So what was your point again?

Science doesn't tell you about wonder. You have to bring an idea of wonder to science.

I live in a society of people. I talk to people. I live amongst people. I interact with people on a daily basis. Most of them are decent folk.

Therefore I conclude that at least some of them do not deserve hell.

On what basis? It's good enough to just be decent? Says who? How do you know this?

What makes you believe that everyone of them deserves hell? Do you have children? If so, do please detail why your new-born child deserved to go to hell.

Who said anything about a new born child? A new born is not capable of making a decision. It's my contention that they do go to the presence of Jesus. As for why others do, it's because God is the greatest good and if one lives their lives not thanking and appreciating what the greatest good has done, they're rejecting Him. That's the worst thing you can do.

I thought we were talking about the Bible, not your specific marriage.

Okay, yes, the principle is the same in that it refers to a specific situation, i.e., within marriage as opposed to within the workplace. However, it is saying the wife will obey the husband. It is wonderful that you treat your wife well. But the Bible is clear; the wife obeys the man. That makes the man the superior, the boss. Just like you obey your superior or your boss at work, the wife obeys her superior in the marriage.

Now do please explain why this arrangement is equal to husband and wife.

There's still equality in their nature. If you think the Bible is hard on women in regard to marriage, usually, when a philosopher gave house rules, the man got nothing. It was all to the children and women and servants on how to treat the man. Paul doesn't do that. There is plenty more about what husbands are to do for their wives, loving them as Christ loved the Church. (There's a case where one is clearly superior and the other obeys and yet the superior is supposed to give the most.) I and others am called to die for my wife if need be. I have to be accountable for how my family turns out and lead my wife in sanctification. Paul has more to say to someone like myself than someone like Allie. Her command? Respect.

Right. Sons are considered responsible for themselves, daughters are not.

That's the daughters getting special guarded treatment. Even to this day fathers still place special guard over their daughters. Do these fathers love their daughters less than their sons?

Well, yes, but Hebrew slaves were treated differently to gentile slaves. Male Hebrew slaves would be freed in Jubilee years.

Simple solution to that.

A Gentile can become part of the covenant people of YHWH.

Also, a Gentile would quite likely be someone living in exile. You release them and where else will they go if they've been banished from their own home?

This does not change the fact that the Bible has rules for selling daughters.

So the daughter gets special treatment from her parent and from the family she goes into that the man does not get and she gets treated like a wife instead of a servant and she must not be denied her rights, and yet the Bible is hard on the women...

It is spin because you are dodging the intent of the passage.

Or it is spin because it doesn't match what you want it to mean.

And the blood of a woman is ritually dirty.

Was there the same rule for men if they were covered in blood from battle? No. Such blood was honourable! Not like the disgusting blood of dirty women.

Where on Earth do you see that about men in battle having blood on them? That blood was not honorable. Going to battle was honorable, but blood was something serious. The life is in the blood.

The tradition dates from when women were seen as less important. I am having difficulty believing you were not aware of that. You do know that women have only been allowed to vote for about a century right?

Which isn't relevant. We do it today still. Does that mean we value women less today?

So you read it as saying Christianity is anti-sex. Perhaps this is an issue with your mindset.

No. I just encounter the mindset regularly.

Thus we can see that atheists are more moral than Christians. Despite not having God peering over my shoulder, despite no threat of hell, and no promise of heaven, I still do not rape women. And that is so of the vast majority of atheist men. So the evidence indicates you are wrong in your opinion.

No. It doesn't. The question that has to be asked is "Why not?" Note also that you live in a society like it or not that has been Christianized and has a Christian ethical background behind it. Most Christians would also say they don't commit rape not out of fear of Hell or promise of Heaven as well I suspect, but I'm just pointing here to the heart issue. This is why Jesus condemns lust. Wrongdoing starts somewhere.

While I am prepared to take your word that you would be a rapist if you were not a Christian, it would seem you are wrong about other men.

That wasn't my argument at all. The claim was that if we could get away with it, we would be rapists. When we lust, the only reason we don't act on those thoughts is that there is something else more worthwhile to us that keeps us from doing so.

In fact, no. I will not take your word even on that. Christianity has convinced you you would be rapist, but that is how it controls. That is part of the meme on the card the girl held. Christianity works so hard to convince you how depraved you are, and what a great success story you are. It has convinced you that if not for your religion you would be a rapist.

Dang. There sure seems to be a lot of straw around here.

Imagine if that card the girl held had had the word "Rapist" on the left side. Would you have been shocked? Or would you have agreed?

No. I wouldn't have agreed. Do you want to deal with the actual claim or do you want to deal with the straw man?

It is only adultery if one of you is married.

No. Adultery is anyone but your spouse.

What stops us is morality. This may be news to you, AP, but morality is not exclusive to Christians.

WOW! INCREDIBLE! NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!

Yes. That's what stops you. You see a woman and you have lust and the temptation is there. Why not act on it? You know it's wrong and if you act on a wrong impulse, there will be consequences be it social stigma, damage to one's own family, etc. But what if those costs were removed and you could get away with it? It's not enough to say "It's immoral." We all do things everyday we know are immoral.

I never thought you meant just Christians. That was my point. Over two billion men manage not to be rapists without following Jesus command. Therefore the command is unnecessary, and is just Christianity trying to control what you think, trying to convince you that you are a pervert, trying to convince you that without it, you would be a rapist.

Good night. How are you missing this?

Then I do not know what your point is.

I don't see how you can miss it...

Can you assure me that Willard is a neutral, unbiased scholar?

No, because they don't exist. I wonder how it would be if I took this approach. "You want me to read The God Delusion? Can you assure me Richard Dawkins is neutral and unbiased?" "You want me to read Misquoting Jesus? Can you assure me Bart Ehrman is neutral and unbiased?"

Bias is an excuse. Look at the arguments given. Arguments do not have biases. See if the data works.

Everyone has a bias. It's unavoidable. The only reason anyone writes anything is because they have a bias.

For the sake of the argument, let us say you are right then.

Jesus is still clear that thinking about sex with a woman other than your wife is a sin, if a lesser sin than the actual act. Would you agree with that?

Yep.

Do we all have moral failures? Sure.

Enough to deserve hell? Even new born children?

I've answered about children above, but for us, yep. We do. Note also that here you have said moral failures. Yet earlier say we all have morality. That's true, but yet even with that morality we still do the wrong thing quite often. Why is that?

Not quite.

The argument here is that the Christian view does not make sense. There are lots of very different people, some with huge moral fails, and some who lead good lives, and just a few kinks. It makes no sense to say that all of them deserve hell. Such a system is not just, as we commonly understand the word.

If you think about our legal system, people are punished for specific crimes, and the severity of the punishment is matched to the severity of the crime. Now compare to the system God supposedly devised. We are all guilty, we all deserve hell. It seems to me that man's system is vastly more just than God's, and yet God is supposed to be all-knowing and perfectly justice. Oh, and infinitely merciful - at least for the grovelling few.

And in the Christian system, people are punished based on the severity of the crime. Heaven and Hell are not one size fits all.

Not sure what your point is. I indicated in an earlier post that the religion convincing you you were fallen and needed God to forgive pre-dated Jesus. Indeed, you quoted me doing just that straight after this.

Religion doesn't need to do that. Everyone knows they have moral failures and every system had a way of dealing with the problem.

Not sure what your point is. Do you think the ancient Hebrews believed they were sinful without priests to tell them what was a sin and what was not? A sin is a transgression against God. I appreciate there may well have been already concepts about shame in the culture. So what?

Of course they knew what was sinful before the priesthood came along. It's not like they got the Ten Commandments and said "Whoa. We have to stop this murder thing."

Did I misunderstand you? What is the relevance of "the center proclamation is the resurrection" to our discussion?

You seemed to be downplaying the message of forgiveness in the NT; can we agree then that forgiveness is an important part of the NT, even if it is not the primary message?

You implied I thought it was the only point. It is not. Forgiveness is part, but yes, it is not the central message. Forgiveness is a result of the main theme.

Can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children? Or is this just your opinion?

The word used indicates unfaithfulness to a covenant. Hard to be thankful when you're abusing your spouse and the kids. At least a separation and counseling is in order.

It is good that you have that opinion, but if it is not in the Bible, then it is no more valid than my opinion on morality, and I am just an atheist.

Not sure what an atheist has to do with it.

Or better sex education to instill the importance of using condoms.

Not only do they have a fail rate, but it actually just wouldn't work. Too many teenagers when they get set won't want to stop to put on a condom. After all "It won't happen to me." This is in fact the problem that happened in New York and San Francisco when AIDS broke out. Messages went up in bathhouses about using condoms over and over. No one listened. What makes you think more money will make them?

Meanwhile, if everyone observed the "one per customer" rule, then problem solved.

A lot of Christians.

Surely you are aware of this?

Really? I haven't heard the stories out there of Christians bursting into the bedrooms of homosexuals trying to stop them. Where is this taking place?

So?

Do you think God wants gays and adulters stoned to death? If not, why did he make it part of the covenant?

Israel was to be a pure nation representing YHWH in everything that they did down to the clothes they were and the crops they raised. Any little yeast of sexual sin like that would go through the whole dough before too long.

Do you believe God thinks you are unclean if you have a nocturnal emission? If not, was this something the ancient Hebrews just made up? Is it only Jews that are unclean in God's eyes if they have a nocturnal emission?

Today? No. Back then, Israel was again to be a pure people in every way and the release of semen like that represented life going out.

I appreciate Revelation uses a lot of symbolism. In this verse, does "defiled themselves with women" actually symbolise following another god?

Rev 14:4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.

If so, then the Bible is drawing an analogy between having sex and worshiping heathen gods. Is that right? Can you see where this is going?

Yes I can. It's used throughout the Bible. What about Hosea? Hosea marries an adulterous woman to show the relationship between YHWH and Israel. Christians today are said to be the bride of Christ. The New Jerusalem comes down like a bride. Marriage is the ultimate analogy for the love of God and His people.

Let us see the full text:

1 Cor 7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you[b] to peace. 16 For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

To me, Paul is saying that sex is bad, but human nature being what it is, it is better to have it within marriage than to try to abstain and fail. You suggest maybe the "matters about which you wrote" could be a famine. Are you suggesting that the city of Corinth was suffering a famine, and the church there wrote to Paul (who was Epheus, 180 miles away; a round trip of about two weeks?) to ask about whether sex was appropriate during a time of famine? And Paul writes back to say it is best if you abstain from sex during a famine, but hey guy, once that famine is over, you do your spouse like there is no tomorrow. Is that what you are suggesting?

If Paul was saying "sex is bad" he would not tell husbands and wives to come together. Also, Paul is writing about the matters they have at the time. The church wrote to Paul about many issues and one of them was quite likely what to do about marriage in a famine. How could a man provide for his wife? Is it wise to take on a wife then?

Also, no to the last part. If you are married, you have to give of yourself. If you are not, you might want to hold off in marriage at this time because it will be hard.

Let us see each verse. He starts by saying ideally, you should abstain from sex, in verse 1, but in verse 2 recognises this is difficult, so recommends marriage (by the way, Paul here shows a lot of support for sexual equality; good for him). Verses 3, 4 and 5 are about couples having sex within marriage.

In verse 1, he says concerning the matters they spoke about. Those are the matters he's recommending abstinence. What are those matters?

Verse 6 is interesting. Paul was presumably celibate, so in verse 6 he is recommending the same for everyone, but again concedes that will not work for all in verse 7.

Not a problem there.

Verses 8 and 9 is about single people, and he recommends they get married, so they can have sex, and thus avoid consuming lusts. I find that an odd instruction for people in a time of famine. What do you think his reasoning is there, AP? I would have guessed it would be better to wait until the famine was over, so the wedding celebrations can be done properly.

The reasoning is simple. if you are going to burn with lust, it's better to get married so you can have an outlet for your burning desire. Some people are not anti-sex, but they just don't have a great desire for sex and don't get married as a result. That's fine. Some people think about it constantly. They need to get married.

Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

The command would also have included adultery. It's part of the Jesus tradition which we do get in the Gospels.

[Apologiaphoenix]

AP

I am having difficult reconciling this:

With this from your latest blog entry:

https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...odless-part-1/

Can you clarify?

It's quite simple. No one is saying atheists are all wicked people bent on doing evil wherever they go. What is being said is we all have the tendency in us and if we could get away with it, we would.

[Christianbookworm]

It's quite simple. No one is saying atheists are all wicked people bent on doing evil wherever they go. What is being said is we all have the tendency in us and if we could get away with it, we would.

We aren't claiming that atheists are like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings! Correct?

[Apologiaphoenix]

We aren't claiming that atheists are like the Orcs in Lord of the Rings! Correct?

No.

The orcs smelled better.

[jpholding]

Thanks JP for putting your own spin on the Bible. If I believed a word of this, I might bother to respond properly.

Sorry chump...this "spin" comes from social science scholars, not me. Try Corley's Private Women, Public Meals for a start. Then work your way through Barton's Roman Honor which says:

The Romans did not mention the name of a proper woman...unless the intention to honor her was clear. Otherwise, to mention her name was to besmirch it.

The reason you won't respond it because it is over your head.

[The Pixie]

sorry chump...this "spin" comes from social science scholars, not me. Try corley's private women, public meals for a start. Then work your way through barton's roman honor which says:

the romans did not mention the name of a proper woman...unless the intention to honor her was clear. Otherwise, to mention her name was to besmirch it.

the reason you won't respond it because it is over your head.

lol

[The Pixie]

Science doesn't tell you about wonder. You have to bring an idea of wonder to science.

Okay, I can go with that. Yes, science brings the facts, we bring the sense of wonder. Together, we can the view that life, the universe, etc. are wonderful. Right side on the card the girl was holding.

On what basis? It's good enough to just be decent? Says who? How do you know this?

On what basis do you contend that everyone deserves to go to hell?

Do "decent" people deserve to go to hell? I think not. If you want to say that is merely my opinion and my opinion is worthless, so be it.

Remember the meme on the card the girl held up? The point of this argument is that science says you are full of wonder, and Christianity says you are s**t. You seem "hell bent" on arguing that we all deserve hell, so, yeah, thanks for making my point for me.

Who said anything about a new born child? A new born is not capable of making a decision. It's my contention that they do go to the presence of Jesus.

On what basis?

I do hope you can point me to some Bible verses to support this claim. Otherwise it is just an opinion, and no better than my own.

At what age do children magically deserve to go to hell?

I assume you approve of abortion. The unborn baby goes straight to the presence of Jesus, without the horrors of this world, and the rather high risk of not being a Christian and so ending up in hell.

As for why others do, it's because God is the greatest good and if one lives their lives not thanking and appreciating what the greatest good has done, they're rejecting Him. That's the worst thing you can do.

Sure. Rejecting God is so much worse than genocide. It must be - God says it is.

I will come back to this later.

There's still equality in their nature. If you think the Bible is hard on women in regard to marriage, usually, when a philosopher gave house rules, the man got nothing. It was all to the children and women and servants on how to treat the man. Paul doesn't do that. There is plenty more about what husbands are to do for their wives, loving them as Christ loved the Church. (There's a case where one is clearly superior and the other obeys and yet the superior is supposed to give the most.) I and others am called to die for my wife if need be. I have to be accountable for how my family turns out and lead my wife in sanctification. Paul has more to say to someone like myself than someone like Allie. Her command? Respect.

I have no idea how what an unnamed philosopher said makes the Bible any better.

I see you have invoked Paul, and as I noted earlier his views are to be commended for sexual equality well ahead of his time. But there is still that bit in Genesis commanding a woman to obey her husband that you are so keen to dodge. Remember, this was the command from God, not merely Paul's opinion (inspired or not).

That's the daughters getting special guarded treatment. Even to this day fathers still place special guard over their daughters. Do these fathers love their daughters less than their sons?

Are you really saying the the ancient Hebrews considered a woman to be worth as much as a man? Conveniently, the Bible puts a figure on it:

Lev 27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

Here is an interesting verse from Deuteronomy:

Deu 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:

The men, the important ones, have to appear before God. He does not want to see the women at all!

You talk about the special love of a father for his daughter, but so what? Atheists have that too. What we are discussing is the Biblical view of women, not the real one!

Simple solution to that.

A Gentile can become part of the covenant people of YHWH.

Also, a Gentile would quite likely be someone living in exile. You release them and where else will they go if they've been banished from their own home?

Is there any reason to suppose that a gentile slave ever became part of the covenant, and then got released in a Jubilee year, or is this just wishful thinking?

Anyway, it is entirely beside the point. The Hebrews had rules for selling daughters, but not sons. Yes, the enslaved daughters were treated better than other slaves, but this was true of all Hebrew slaves.

So the daughter gets special treatment from her parent and from the family she goes into that the man does not get and she gets treated like a wife instead of a servant and she must not be denied her rights, and yet the Bible is hard on the women...

You call selling her "special treatment"? Wow.

Or it is spin because it doesn't match what you want it to mean.

Let us have a look at the context. It is a short chapter, so here is the entirety.

Lev 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

My contention is that this is about ritual cleanness. Your contention, if I understand you, is that the purpose of the text is about ensuring the baby is kept with the mother. Is that right?

By the way, the previous chapter is about what animals are ritually clean and which are not. The subsequent chapter is about skin complaints, and whether a sufferer is clean or unclean.

Where on Earth do you see that about men in battle having blood on them? That blood was not honorable. Going to battle was honorable, but blood was something serious. The life is in the blood.

So there are verses saying that the men are unclean when they have blood on them? Just like women are unclean when they have blood?

Which isn't relevant. We do it today still. Does that mean we value women less today?

I do not know what your point is here. Can you clarify?

No. It doesn't. The question that has to be asked is "Why not?" Note also that you live in a society like it or not that has been Christianized and has a Christian ethical background behind it. Most Christians would also say they don't commit rape not out of fear of Hell or promise of Heaven as well I suspect, but I'm just pointing here to the heart issue. This is why Jesus condemns lust. Wrongdoing starts somewhere.

As an aside, I appreciate I have a Christian ethical background (though I disagree with where that in turn comes from).

You said earlier:

"WHen you look at a woman and look at her to lust, you're pretty much saying "I would really love to have sex with that woman?" Well what's stopping you? Remove enough barriers, such as how you will be seen in public or personal feelings of guilt and what have you, and the reality is that that is the attitude that will lead to rape and/or adultery."

You now seem to be backing away from that position, and saying that if you were not a Christian, actually you would not be raping every woman you could get away with. That is good to know!

That wasn't my argument at all. The claim was that if we could get away with it, we would be rapists. When we lust, the only reason we don't act on those thoughts is that there is something else more worthwhile to us that keeps us from doing so.

Oh, dear. Apparently not.

Perhaps you can clarify, as I am not understanding your position.

Dang. There sure seems to be a lot of straw around here.

Or it could be misunderstanding.

No, no. I am an atheist, therefore evil, therefore it must be a straw man.

Where do these impressions that Christians think atheists are all wicked come from?

Now how about instead of the straw man accusation, you just explain what you meant, and we can continue to have a civilised conversation?

No. Adultery is anyone but your spouse.

Not according to the common definition, but we can use your definition if you prefer. I am now wondering what Biblical verses mean with the word. I think some use "fornication" to refer to sex between unmarried partners?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery
[quote][quote]What stops us is morality. This may be news to you, AP, but morality is not exclusive to Christians.

WOW! INCREDIBLE! NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED THAT!

Yes. That's what stops you. You see a woman and you have lust and the temptation is there. Why not act on it? You know it's wrong and if you act on a wrong impulse, there will be consequences be it social stigma, damage to one's own family, etc. But what if those costs were removed and you could get away with it? It's not enough to say "It's immoral." We all do things everyday we know are immoral.

Actually, yes it is enough. For me, anyway.

I never thought you meant just Christians. That was my point. Over two billion men manage not to be rapists without following Jesus command. Therefore the command is unnecessary, and is just Christianity trying to control what you think, trying to convince you that you are a pervert, trying to convince you that without it, you would be a rapist.

Good night. How are you missing this?

No idea what you mean here.

I don't see how you can miss it...

Really? Well, I guess you can choose to clarify or to drop it.

No, because they don't exist. I wonder how it would be if I took this approach. "You want me to read The God Delusion? Can you assure me Richard Dawkins is neutral and unbiased?" "You want me to read Misquoting Jesus? Can you assure me Bart Ehrman is neutral and unbiased?"

No I cannot assure you of that. But then, I never recommended those books to you.

Bias is an excuse. Look at the arguments given. Arguments do not have biases. See if the data works.

The data are the verses in the Bible. All the rest is interpretation.

If you think the argument is good, present it here.

I've answered about children above, but for us, yep. We do. Note also that here you have said moral failures. Yet earlier say we all have morality. That's true, but yet even with that morality we still do the wrong thing quite often. Why is that?

You seem to make a big deal about moral failures versus morality. Can we not have both? Am I missing something here?

Do you ever do wrong? If so, I will let you explain why.

And in the Christian system, people are punished based on the severity of the crime. Heaven and Hell are not one size fits all.

The worst crime, though, is rejecting God. As you said:

"As for why others do, it's because God is the greatest good and if one lives their lives not thanking and appreciating what the greatest good has done, they're rejecting Him. That's the worst thing you can do."

So all the non-Christians, that is around 5 billion of the people around today, they will all go to the worst hell. Is that right? From Gandhi to Hitler, all those who committed the worst crime of rejecting God will be in the same hell. Well, maybe not Hitler, it is not clear what his religious beliefs were. Maybe he accepted God so went to a lesser hell.

Religion doesn't need to do that. Everyone knows they have moral failures and every system had a way of dealing with the problem.

Sure people know they have moral failures, but it takes religion to convince them those failures are so bad that they deserve to go to hell. People have both good and bad in them, and in the vast majority of people, the good is much greater than the bad. Christianity focuses entirely on the bad. You have some moral weaknesses, therefore you are fallen, sinful, etc. But look, join our religion and you will be okay.

Of course they knew what was sinful before the priesthood came along. It's not like they got the Ten Commandments and said "Whoa. We have to stop this murder thing."

They knew what was right and wrong. It took religion to convince them they were inherently sinful, fallen.

You implied I thought it was the only point. It is not. Forgiveness is part, but yes, it is not the central message. Forgiveness is a result of the main theme.

Then I misunderstood.

We are both agreed then that a major message from the NT is forgiveness. Great, so we can go back to this exchange (post #10):

Step 1: Convince everyone they are fallen, sinful
Step 2: Offer Jesus to save them

That's a more modern way. It's not really the way that I see in Scripture done. Sure, forgiveness is talked about, but the center proclamation is the resurrection.

Can you explain what your point was, now we have established that "Forgiveness is a result of the main theme"?
[quote][quote]Can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children? Or is this just your opinion?

The word used indicates unfaithfulness to a covenant. Hard to be thankful when you're abusing your spouse and the kids. At least a separation and counseling is in order.

Okay, but can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children?

Not only do they have a fail rate, but it actually just wouldn't work. Too many teenagers when they get set won't want to stop to put on a condom. After all "It won't happen to me." This is in fact the problem that happened in New York and San Francisco when AIDS broke out. Messages went up in bathhouses about using condoms over and over. No one listened. What makes you think more money will make them?

Meanwhile, if everyone observed the "one per customer" rule, then problem solved.

And you have evidence this "one per customer" rule will stop teenage pregnancies?
http://www.livescience.com/5728-teen...us-states.html

Really? I haven't heard the stories out there of Christians bursting into the bedrooms of homosexuals trying to stop them. Where is this taking place?

I have not heard of that either.

But I have heard of Christians getting homosexuality outlawed in Africa, for example, and I have heard them preaching that homosexuality is wrong and that gay people should not have sex.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/wo...anda.html?_r=0
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...323-story.html
https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...-homosexuality

Do you think God wants gays and adulters stoned to death? If not, why did he make it part of the covenant?

Israel was to be a pure nation representing YHWH in everything that they did down to the clothes they were and the crops they raised. Any little yeast of sexual sin like that would go through the whole dough before too long.

Okay, and do you think God wants gays and adulterers stoned to death?

It is a yes/no question. I will also accept "don't know". Anything else is dodge.

Today? No. Back then, Israel was again to be a pure people in every way and the release of semen like that represented life going out.

Talk me through this. You are saying that God held the ancient Hebrews to a higher standard than he does for Christians today? He wanted them to be pure, but he is not bothered whether Christians are pure? Is that right? Perhaps he realised his expectations were set to high, afterall it is not like he is all-knowing. Oh, wait...

And this thing about semen. You say it "represented life going out". How does that make it impure?

I appreciate Revelation uses a lot of symbolism. In this verse, does "defiled themselves with women" actually symbolise following another god?

Rev 14:4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.

If so, then the Bible is drawing an analogy between having sex and worshiping heathen gods. Is that right? Can you see where this is going?

Yes I can. It's used throughout the Bible. What about Hosea? Hosea marries an adulterous woman to show the relationship between YHWH and Israel. Christians today are said to be the bride of Christ. The New Jerusalem comes down like a bride. Marriage is the ultimate analogy for the love of God and His people.

So the thing in Revelation about men "not defiled themselves with women" is analogous to Christians being the bride of Christ? You are saying not touching is analogous to marriage? Can you clarify?

If Paul was saying "sex is bad" he would not tell husbands and wives to come together. Also, Paul is writing about the matters they have at the time. The church wrote to Paul about many issues and one of them was quite likely what to do about marriage in a famine. How could a man provide for his wife? Is it wise to take on a wife then?

Also, no to the last part. If you are married, you have to give of yourself. If you are not, you might want to hold off in marriage at this time because it will be hard.

That might be convincing if not for the fact that Paul advises them to get married!

The reasoning is simple. if you are going to burn with lust, it's better to get married so you can have an outlet for your burning desire. Some people are not anti-sex, but they just don't have a great desire for sex and don't get married as a result. That's fine. Some people think about it constantly. They need to get married.

Exactly.

Paul is saying sex is bad, but sex within marriage is preferable to burning with lust.

Remember, according to you this is advice on what to do in time of famine. Paul is advising them to get married!

Then we get a bit about divorce, with a clear command (from God) that the divorced should not remarry. This seems to contradict your own position, AP, where you said, post #7: "I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

The command would also have included adultery. It's part of the Jesus tradition which we do get in the Gospels.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said.

It's quite simple. No one is saying atheists are all wicked people bent on doing evil wherever they go. What is being said is we all have the tendency in us and if we could get away with it, we would.

Is your position: No one is saying atheists are all wicked people bent on doing evil wherever they go, instead we think they are all wicked people with a tendancy to do evil whenever they can get away with it.

So when on your blog you said:

"Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

Exactly how wrong is this guy's impression?

Remember, you said this:

As for why others do, it's because God is the greatest good and if one lives their lives not thanking and appreciating what the greatest good has done, they're rejecting Him. That's the worst thing you can do.

This indicates that being an atheist, i.e., rejecting God, is in your opinion worse then being a serial rapist and paedophile. Again and again you give me this impression that you think all atheists are wicked, and yet you take exception when people get this impression.

[jpholding]

lol

That's precisely the most intelligent response you will ever be able to offer.

[Bill the Cat]

That's precisely the most intelligent response you will ever be able to offer.

I think he was surrendering, JP. That lol looks like a head with arms raised...

[Apologiaphoenix]

Okay, I can go with that. Yes, science brings the facts, we bring the sense of wonder. Together, we can the view that life, the universe, etc. are wonderful. Right side on the card the girl was holding.

And I could also add you don't need science in the modern sense to know those facts. The wonder comes from metaphysics really. Is there anything that is truly wonderful or do we just have an idea of wonder that we project on it?

On what basis do you contend that everyone deserves to go to hell?

Everyone has sinned. That's the basis.

Do "decent" people deserve to go to hell? I think not. If you want to say that is merely my opinion and my opinion is worthless, so be it.

No. I want to see you make an argument for it. Keep God and Christ in the picture for us and make an argument where by you will determine who gets to be in the presence of God and who doesn't and also explain why this isn't just arbitrary.

Remember the meme on the card the girl held up? The point of this argument is that science says you are full of wonder, and Christianity says you are s**t. You seem "hell bent" on arguing that we all deserve hell, so, yeah, thanks for making my point for me.

No. It says you are fallen and you are meant for better things. You're meant to rule and reign and be in an exalted place.

On what basis?

I do hope you can point me to some Bible verses to support this claim. Otherwise it is just an opinion, and no better than my own.

At what age do children magically deserve to go to hell?

No set age, but in 2 Samuel 12, David says after his son dies that he will go to be with his son and his son will not go to be with him. Isaiah 7 speaks of a time before a child knows the right from the wrong. What's the magical age? There isn't one. it depends on the maturity of the child and when they understand. The same could also be said for people with severe intellectual disabilities.

I assume you approve of abortion. The unborn baby goes straight to the presence of Jesus, without the horrors of this world, and the rather high risk of not being a Christian and so ending up in hell.

Why would I condone doing evil that good may result?

Sure. Rejecting God is so much worse than genocide. It must be - God says it is.

I will come back to this later.

If God is real, He is the greatest good, the most beautiful, the most true, the sustainer that all that exists, the giver of all good gifts, the foundation of righteousness, the ultimate judge, etc. and if someone says to Him in essence "forget you" and goes without Him, well they get their wish. That's what Hell is. They get to live and be their own gods.

I have no idea how what an unnamed philosopher said makes the Bible any better.

The philosopher was a general term because this happened when any great teacher gave house rules. It wasn't referring to just one. The man was not given instructions. Everyone else was instructed how to serve the man. Paul doesn't do that. He tells the man how to treat the woman.

I see you have invoked Paul, and as I noted earlier his views are to be commended for sexual equality well ahead of his time. But there is still that bit in Genesis commanding a woman to obey her husband that you are so keen to dodge. Remember, this was the command from God, not merely Paul's opinion (inspired or not).

What's the problem with having a woman obey her husband?

Are you really saying the the ancient Hebrews considered a woman to be worth as much as a man? Conveniently, the Bible puts a figure on it:

Lev 27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.

This was also because of differences. Men and women are equal in being both fully human, but they have differences. A man is generally capable of doing a lot more of the work that is needed due to tending to be stronger. That's worth more.

Here is an interesting verse from Deuteronomy:

Deu 16:16 Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:

The men, the important ones, have to appear before God. He does not want to see the women at all!

How would this follow that the women are not cared for? All that follows from this is that the men tended to have the responsibility of leadership.

You talk about the special love of a father for his daughter, but so what? Atheists have that too. What we are discussing is the Biblical view of women, not the real one!

Wow. So atheists have something, therefore, that can't be what the Biblical passage could also have in mind. Wow.

Is there any reason to suppose that a gentile slave ever became part of the covenant, and then got released in a Jubilee year, or is this just wishful thinking?

Why not? Anyone who became a part of the covenant got the blessings of the covenant. This would include even Gentile women like Ruth and Rahab.

Anyway, it is entirely beside the point. The Hebrews had rules for selling daughters, but not sons. Yes, the enslaved daughters were treated better than other slaves, but this was true of all Hebrew slaves.

That's because daughters also tied family lines so you had to be more specific in that area. Sons didn't do that. Your last sentence is problematic. Daughters were treated better but this was true of all Hebrew slaves? Hebrew daughters were treated better than Hebrew sons but that's true of Hebrew sons as well?

You call selling her "special treatment"? Wow.

Nice to have someone speaking from a fully Western perspective. Yes. Marriages were not based on love. That's a more modern phenomenon. It was a way of uniting two families and in this case, a poorer family with a richer one. That way, the daughter could get into a family where she would be cared for instead of the one she was in where she would not be.

Let us have a look at the context. It is a short chapter, so here is the entirety.

Lev 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
12:5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
12:6 And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or dove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
12:7 Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

My contention is that this is about ritual cleanness. Your contention, if I understand you, is that the purpose of the text is about ensuring the baby is kept with the mother. Is that right?

It's both, but ritual purity means the woman gets more time with the daughter, the daughter more time with the mother, and this is time that the mother does not have to work. The mother gets extra bonding with a daughter.

So there are verses saying that the men are unclean when they have blood on them? Just like women are unclean when they have blood?

Blood was seen as a symbol of life. The reason a woman would be seen as unclean in her period was that her life was flowing out of her symbolically. For a man with his semen, his life was flowing out of him that same way. Why should I think getting blood in battle would be different? In fact, after the battle with the Midianites in Numbers 31, anyone who killed a man or touched a corpse was to go and be outside the camp for a week of purification.

I do not know what your point is here. Can you clarify?

How the tradition began of a woman changing her name doesn't matter. What matters is that we do it. Does it mean because we do it that we value women less?

As an aside, I appreciate I have a Christian ethical background (though I disagree with where that in turn comes from).

It only comes from one place. An atheist thinker like Jurgen Habermas would even tell you without Christianity, we would not have the moral systems we have today. What today seems obviously moral to you would not have been seen the same way before Christianity came along.

You said earlier:

"WHen you look at a woman and look at her to lust, you're pretty much saying "I would really love to have sex with that woman?" Well what's stopping you? Remove enough barriers, such as how you will be seen in public or personal feelings of guilt and what have you, and the reality is that that is the attitude that will lead to rape and/or adultery."

You now seem to be backing away from that position, and saying that if you were not a Christian, actually you would not be raping every woman you could get away with. That is good to know!

No, because I still would have a moral system. My contention is rape and adultery start somewhere. They start with those thoughts. When does a man do the wrong? When he thinks the good that he can get is greater than any cost he could pay. That's the cost-benefit analysis. That's why one stops the idea immediately lest the benefits in the mind grow and grow.

Oh, dear. Apparently not.

Perhaps you can clarify, as I am not understanding your position.

What part needs clarifying?

Or it could be misunderstanding.

No, no. I am an atheist, therefore evil, therefore it must be a straw man.

Where do these impressions that Christians think atheists are all wicked come from?

Now how about instead of the straw man accusation, you just explain what you meant, and we can continue to have a civilised conversation?

I have....I have repeatedly.

Not according to the common definition, but we can use your definition if you prefer. I am now wondering what Biblical verses mean with the word. I think some use "fornication" to refer to sex between unmarried partners?

Yes. That would be fine.

What stops us is morality. This may be news to you, AP, but morality is not exclusive to Christians.

That's part of natural law thinking....

Actually, yes it is enough. For me, anyway.

And what happens when that scale changes? What happens when it becomes no big deal. Why do you also think it is wrong? What consequences would happen if it was done? After all, we can all think something is wrong but do it anyway.

No I cannot assure you of that. But then, I never recommended those books to you.

You could recommend any book to me and it would not be an unbiased book. Everyone has a bias. You write a book because you have a viewpoint you want to get across. That gives you a bias.

The data are the verses in the Bible. All the rest is interpretation.

If you think the argument is good, present it here.

Sure. I'll present 400+ pages of a commentary right here. That will suffice. The data starts with the Bible, but the interpretation could be done by someone skilled or unskilled. Would you want someone like myself looking over the data of a blood test and prescribing a medication?

You seem to make a big deal about moral failures versus morality. Can we not have both? Am I missing something here?

You can only have moral failures if you have morality and unless perfect people exist, if you have morality, you have moral failures.

Do you ever do wrong? If so, I will let you explain why.

Absolutely I do. Why? Because there is a good that I want that seems at the time greater than any costs to it.

The worst crime, though, is rejecting God. As you said:

"As for why others do, it's because God is the greatest good and if one lives their lives not thanking and appreciating what the greatest good has done, they're rejecting Him. That's the worst thing you can do."

So all the non-Christians, that is around 5 billion of the people around today, they will all go to the worst hell. Is that right? From Gandhi to Hitler, all those who committed the worst crime of rejecting God will be in the same hell. Well, maybe not Hitler, it is not clear what his religious beliefs were. Maybe he accepted God so went to a lesser hell.

No. Some would have rejected God with greater knowledge. Some would not have. All people are judged according to the light that they received.

Sure people know they have moral failures, but it takes religion to convince them those failures are so bad that they deserve to go to hell. People have both good and bad in them, and in the vast majority of people, the good is much greater than the bad. Christianity focuses entirely on the bad. You have some moral weaknesses, therefore you are fallen, sinful, etc. But look, join our religion and you will be okay.

Actually, this is false. Even Aquinas said on the whole people do more good than bad. What Christianity does say is that there is a problem, and in fact, this is not new. Every system knows there is a problem. Christianity then says "Here is our solution to it." What needs to be asked is if the solution is true or false.

They knew what was right and wrong. It took religion to convince them they were inherently sinful, fallen.

It doesn't take religion to know that. Everyone knows there's a problem.





[QUOTE] Can you explain what your point was, now we have established that "Forgiveness is a result of the main theme"?
[quote]

Can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children? Or is this just your opinion?
Okay, but can you find anything in the Bible about abuse to the spouse or children?

If we make Christianity be about just the forgiveness of sins, then we do lose focus. The hope of Israel is that God would become king over the Earth once more and His rule would be manifest. Where does forgiveness fit in with that? It means being on good relation with the King and siding with Him.

For what I think, I would point to Jesus talking about marital unfaithfulness. Some think this is just adultery, but I think it could just as much refer to abuse going on. That is not being faithful to the covenant.

And you have evidence this "one per customer" rule will stop teenage pregnancies?
http://www.livescience.com/5728-teen...us-states.html

If it is followed, yes. Are those teenagers following it? Doubtful since they're not married. How does it show a rule does not work when we say "Look. Where the rule is not followed, teen pregnancies go up."

I think we've tried long enough with the "Just tell them about condoms" method. It hasn't worked so well.

I have not heard of that either.

But I have heard of Christians getting homosexuality outlawed in Africa, for example, and I have heard them preaching that homosexuality is wrong and that gay people should not have sex.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/wo...anda.html?_r=0
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...323-story.html
https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-chr...-homosexuality

Most Christians I know have no interest in outlawing homosexuality. Do we say that it's wrong and shouldn't be done. Yes. That's not the same as not allowing people to do it. We think pre-marital sex is wrong but we don't burst into peoples' houses to see what they're doing. The only exception to something like this, and one I can definitely understand, is a parent keeping watch on what goes on under their own roof with their kids.

Okay, and do you think God wants gays and adulterers stoned to death?

Such was only in Israel and only for the time of the theocracy. Today, in the new covenant, those who do this and do not repent are to be cut off from the body for the time being.

It is a yes/no question. I will also accept "don't know". Anything else is dodge.

No. It's just explaining.

Talk me through this. You are saying that God held the ancient Hebrews to a higher standard than he does for Christians today? He wanted them to be pure, but he is not bothered whether Christians are pure? Is that right? Perhaps he realised his expectations were set to high, afterall it is not like he is all-knowing. Oh, wait...

No. He in fact holds Christians to a higher standard, but the Christians are not one people living in one nation and do not have the same sacrificial system and also have the Holy Spirit working in them which the Hebrews generally did not have. We are held to a higher standard such as the Sermon on the Mount, and we would be judged more severely because we come after the resurrection. Not before.

Check your NT. There's plenty of commands to be pure and righteous. Without holiness, no one will see the Lord.

And this thing about semen. You say it "represented life going out". How does that make it impure?

Life being spilled. That doesn't mean it was dirty or evil, but it means that that which represents the life of a man has left him, meaning death. Death is impure.

So the thing in Revelation about men "not defiled themselves with women" is analogous to Christians being the bride of Christ? You are saying not touching is analogous to marriage? Can you clarify?

Those who did not defile themselves are those who remained faithful to the covenant and not chasing after others. This is so especially since Revelation describes a time where people will be tempted to stray, and that's true on both a futurist and a preterist interpretation.

That might be convincing if not for the fact that Paul advises them to get married!

Get married if you will burn with passion. It is better to have that passion satisfied than to burn with it, especially if it distracts you from everything else.

Exactly.

Paul is saying sex is bad, but sex within marriage is preferable to burning with lust.

Remember, according to you this is advice on what to do in time of famine. Paul is advising them to get married!

No. Paul is saying in a time of famine, taking on a wife will bring about extra responsibilities that could be difficult for the present situation. He is not saying sex is bad at all. He's a good Jew after all.

I have no idea how this relates to what I said.

How do you think Paul knew what the Lord said?

Is your position: No one is saying atheists are all wicked people bent on doing evil wherever they go, instead we think they are all wicked people with a tendancy to do evil whenever they can get away with it.

So when on your blog you said:

"Somehow in his environment, he got the impression that atheists must just be wicked people somehow. I don’t know any Christian intellectual who holds to such a position."

Exactly how wrong is this guy's impression?

Remember, you said this:

This indicates that being an atheist, i.e., rejecting God, is in your opinion worse then being a serial rapist and paedophile. Again and again you give me this impression that you think all atheists are wicked, and yet you take exception when people get this impression.

Many atheists can be fine people on a horizontal level, relating to their fellow man. Many Christians can be jerks on a horizontal level. THe vertical level though is about what do you do with the one who is the greatest good and not the ones who are lesser. Yes. The greatest evil one can do is to shun that which is the greatest good of all. All other evils one does are a result of shunning this greater good.