Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Show me the verse. Show me the verse that includes khazaq and the unbetrothed damsel.
That’s how our society functions notwithstanding. How does this become “crude”?
Never mind the lack of definition for “freedom” and “self-determination” in this context. Do they mean “license” and “self-aggrandizement” respectively here? or something else?
You already saw the sole occurrence of “khazaq” and I said no more than that. Are you asking for the scriptures to micromanage the rest or can you presume that even human judges can figure the rest out? Omission does not mean absence of jurisprudence.
Incidentally, getting back to the Ten Commandments (a law so stringent that no human can keep it—the Bible says that only with the Holy Spirit and faith it’d be possible to keep it), other verses in the rest of the Bible proscribe death for even breaking one of those commandments (Romans 6:23; James 2:10). The death penalty becomes more encompassing thereby.
If I were conscripted by the state to kill Amalekite children, I would kill my commanders, and I would have moral justification for doing so.
So... violently raping a virgin is of such little importance that the Old Testament never even addresses it? In that whole, huge collection of writings, that tells you how to dress, how to pray, what to eat, how to speak, how to plant your fields... (the important things, apparently)... only mentions rape ONCE??
And only long enough to say that if the woman was raped, and is betrothed, don't kill her?
Because taking the time to utter ONE SENTENCE about rape being wrong is "micromanaging?" That's how little importance is attached to it?
Wow. Thank you. You have proved my point for me, better than I ever could. The god of the Muslims and the god of the Old Testament are definitely the same god. Moreso even than I realized. You have illustrated it beautifully.
Not good to presume. I’ll have to ask you if you are asking for the Bible to micromanage again, especially after I pointed out that all evil works are punishable by death according to it. The Bible is more like a constitution rather than a whole book of laws; do you know the definition between the two of those, now?
You haven’t proven anything yet, other than you are seeking self-justification. If it is not enough that violent rape is mentioned once and that the punishment cited for it is death on the part of the offending male, then what is? Once is enough. Quibbling between betrothed and non-betrothed females is lawyeristic dissembling.
BTW, you go on and on about the Bible being like the Koran but you haven’t cited any parallel suras to the Bible verses you’re quoting.
The Amalekites were not extirpated, though.
Although you are begging the question as to what you would do against an enemy that has slaughtered the children of your nation.
What are your views on abortion?
Just curious...don’t really dislike your beliefs, we are all free to believe what we will.
Ed
So you don’t believe that consciousness exists?
<<><><><><
And where did you get that from what I have written on this thread?
You appear to wrangling for a ‘gotcha’ moment, but I don’t think you’ve got the goods to get there.
God or not, life is special, so I’m against it, especially as a curative for recreation.
-— On the contrary, everything is permissible if you believe God is on your side. -—
Depends on whether the god you worship is Mohammed’s god or the God of Aristotle and Aquinas, Who is Goodness, Truth, Beauty, One and Existence Itself.
It's a simple question.
Yes. Yes, I am. I think the Middle East today would be a whole different place if they had a religion that considered women important enough to warrant a couple sentences about rape. Thou shalt not lay hold of any woman by force. Not a married woman, not a widow, not a virgin betrothed or unbetrothed, or a child, not a slave of your own or another's. Yea, verily I say unto thee, even the wife of your own should not be stricken and forced.
If the God and the prophets of the Old Testament had time and paper enough to say not to boil beef in milk, not to plant two different kinds of seeds in one field, not to let your brother's sheep wander off, not to take a mother bird from her nest, not to wear wool and linen mixed blend... that's not micro-managing? You are the worst apologist I have ever had the amusement to meet.
But no, the OT did not even recognize rape as a legal category. If you violated another man's property, you were punished. Your punishment did not vary if it was rape, no fine to be paid to the raped woman, no flogging before death to display that this was a double-crime... because it wasn't. Women had no rights. If you ruined a virgin, you paid her father and you got to keep her. (You broke it, you bought it.)
And that is the Middle East today.
Either your argument that taphas doesn't include rape is mendacious, or rape is so unimportant in society, there is no bother mentioning it. Either way points to an attitude about women paralleled today in modern Islam. It is clearly closer to the OT than modern day Christianity is.
Quibbling between betrothed and non-betrothed females is lawyeristic dissembling.
Then why does Deuteronomy make a point of "quibbling" between betrothed and non-betrothed? You have sex with a betrothed woman, you die. You have sex with a non-betrothed woman, you marry her. Clearly "betrothed" was the cognitive category that makes a difference to the man's legal status, not force. The presence or absence of force makes no difference to the man's legal status. It is, in fact, according to you, so unimportant we must not mention it. Presence of force indicates the female should not be punished, and that is the only mention of rape in THE WHOLE BIBLE.
A whole book dedicated to guiding men, and it was more important to mention not to boil beef in milk than it was to mention not raping women. Because that's merely a quibble. After all, in most societies we don't worry about men raping women, we worry about them boiling beef in milk and running around taking mother birds off their nests and then there's that rash of wool & linen wearing that always rears its ugly head whenever young men get their blood up....
Face it. The morality of the Old Testament is the morality of the Middle East today. Muslim men are living the dream.
Some things just don’t fly when you add a little intuitive wisdom.
Saying God is the source of hate is a good example.
The worst way to seek comfort is when a man wants to be his own boss. This is the source of atheistic thinking.
I don’t think the ultimate conclusion of your reasoning is sensible.
Truth and lies are opposites.
Lying is wrong. If I had to lie about hiding Anne Frank, I would repent and ask forgiveness from God. Loving the truth will bring a person to repentance. If a person loves the truth, God knows it.
Are you saying that not a single advocate for theism admitted, right up front, that at the core is nothing more than faith?
You’ve just met the first advocate that admits this up front.
The rest of it is circumstantial evidence, the crushing weight of the improbability of the Universe and everything in it being a random act, etc.
But, at the core, there is belief, not fact.
I can’t know this, of course, but in looking back are you sure that none, no one, admitted up front that everything about God, or a supreme being, is about faith?
But you would do it, knowing it is against God? And you'd feel you needed His forgiveness afterward?
Derbyshire’s isn’t low voltage. His position was confrontational, unlike Will. Derb is willful, Will is a droid.
Disagree. Derb was until recently a proclaimed low-grade believer, but has slipped over the edge into atheism.
He still routinely speaks respectfully of believers as such. He is confrontational only with those he considers unscientific, intentionally deceptive or espousing positions contrary to the evidence. The lead group being Young Earth Creationists.
This is quite different from having an attitude of hatred or disdain for anybody who believes in a Supreme Being. Not all beliefs are deserving of respect simply because they are religious in nature.
But never mind, I would do a bunch of things differently, and it wouldn't include massacring children or carrying out genocide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.