Atheist author fights back

[Mersenne]

I’ve read through the entire Bible as well, but I missed the part where God commanded people to commit rape. Could you enlighten us and provide chapter and verse where men are commanded to rape women?

I didn’t say that men were commanded to rape women, I said that the bible condones rape. But yes, yes I can.

Judges 21:10-24

So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives.  But there were not enough women for all of them.  The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel.  So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead?  There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever.  But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse."

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem.  They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards.  When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife!  And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding.  Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'"  So the men of Benjamin did as they were told.  They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance.  Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them.  So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

There are dozens of such examples. If you rape someone then you have to marry them. That seems to me like saying rape is okay by god’s standards. And do take into account, it doesn’t say “unless the girl doesn’t want to marry the man, then he is put to death” it doesn’t say the woman has any choice in the matter, and even if she did, then he just wouldn’t be punished at all. So the punishment for rape is getting to rape her regularly?

 

[Mersenne]

This seems basically fair. If you don’t know that your ox is dangerous, then you personally shouldn’t be punished, but if you are told that you have a dangerous animal then you are responsible for it. Notice that the verses mention that even if the ox gores a boy or girl, the punishment is the same. This is because surrounding cultures did not hold children in high regard.

I believe you are missing the point here. The point being that while one action that results in the death of a person is punishable by death, the same action taken against a slave is punishable by a fine. The message is clear, slaves don’t count as people.

 

[Mersenne]

I told you that I would look at the other verses, so here is my answer. I am using an easier bible translation then you, so it will read a bit different. Exodus 21:7-11

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do. But if her master who had destined her for himself, dislikes her, he shall let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to a foreigner, since he has broken faith with her. If he destines her for his son, he shall treat her like a daughter. If he takes another wife, he shall not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. If he does not grant her these three things, she shall be given her freedom absolutely, without cost to her.

I think that I am reading these verses differently then you are. My bible says destined means *to take as a second wife. *If a man has sex with his servant then she is considered his second wife and he has to treat her as one. If he wants to get rid of her then he can’t sell her to foreigners and and must let her be redeemed. If he denies her certain rights then she shall have her freedom without costs. It sounds like it was more of a hassle for an owner to have sex with a female slave then to just leave her alone.

The point is that the bible is saying that it’s okay to sell your daughter into slavery. Sense this “destined” probably isn’t refering to anything consensual, we’re talking about selling your daughter into sexual slavery. It’s little comfort that if the guy doesn’t like her, he’s not allowed to sell her into foreign sexual slavery, or that if he wants to reserve her as a sexual slave for his son, then he has to be nice to her, or that he has to feed her. How very enlightened the bible is, telling people to feed and clothe their sexual slaves.

 

[Mersenne]

This irritates me also and I am a Christian! You find this sort of strange attitude among fundamentalists more then Catholics or main stream Protestants.

Fundementalists tend to be the ones who take it for what it says.

 

[Mersenne]

That is not what I read in the verse.

I read that if two days after a beating the slave is still alive, then the owner is not punished. So, if the slave dies in two days, the owner is punished. Does that make sense?

Many people do not immediately die from a beating but linger for awhile. That is the purpose for the verse, to make certain that the owner is not let off from the punishment simply because his slave didn’t immediately expire.

The text doesn’t say that a person can beat a slave for two days.

Okay, but it does say he can murder the slave, as long as the slave doesn’t die right away, and that’s okay.

 

[Mersenne]

Jewish people use oral tradition to compliment the scriptures, so it was somewhat more gently practiced.

Most Christians do not use the Old Testament as a guide for morality.

Unless you’re talking about unitarians, obviously untrue. I can’t think of very many christians who wouldn’t whip out a couple of choice old testement verses to prove a point. Remind me again, ten commandments, old testement or new? The book of the bible that they always quote against homosexuals, leviticus, was that old testament or new? Creation story? Original sin? Christians use the old testament whenever it supports what they want, but conviniently claim it somehow “doesn’t count” when it doesn’t.

And I used the new testament as well, so that arguement is DOA anyway.

 

[rtconstant]

Yet this backward and immoral book is the basis upon which we have created our modern concepts of social justice, and that includes you. Whether you want to accept it or not your higher moral outlook is due too being raised in a judeo-christian culture.

Yes the bible gives rules for things that today would be considered immoral yet it isn’t the specific rules that are the key here it is the concepts that it established which are important. The bible gives rules for how to treat slaves. Now one could look at that on the surface and say the bible condones slavery or one could look at it as establishing a tradition of slaves having to be treated within a legal system. Which is more or less how the the Jews and then latter the Christians began to view it.

God coming out too say that all people are equal in those days would have fallen on unhearing ears. This is because people in those times had completely different assumptions about ethical thinking than we do today. To the ancients the concept of human equality would have been rediculous. The strong ruled that was a given, and the fact that they ruled made them “better”. War defined government and since war in those days depended on physical power women were of less value then men.

The proof is the pudding on this one. While nothing that you are saying is technically inaccurate. We still look at history and see that churches have been at the heart of the civil rights movements, and suffrage. Were all the churches? No, but nevertheless the teachings of the church and the Bible inspired those who did stand up and the movements that they started changed the world.

Obviously we can confidently say that humanity when left too its own designs would not have developed sophistocated ethics. Yet in the areas where that the judeo-christian ethic has an historical basis we have seen advancements in human dignity. We still have a ways to go but we’ve certainly made progress. This should be evidence enough of the Bibles ability to transend the era in which it was written.

 

[Mersenne]

Yet this backward and immoral book is the basis upon which we have created our modern concepts of social justice, and that includes you.

Hardly. Have you heard of hammurabi? And it could be said that our modern concepts of social justice evolved despite christianity, not because of it.

Whether you want to accept it or not your higher moral outlook is due too being raised in a judeo-christian culture.

So you’re saying no other culture in the world has morals?

The proof is the pudding on this one. While nothing that you are saying is technically inaccurate.

Quite so! The proof IS in the pudding on this one. You don’t have any way to know how much influence the church had on having slaves or freeing the slaves. We do know the bible was used to support slavery. But the proof is in the pudding. All we can know for sure is what the bible says, and you can rationalize all you want, but what the bible says is still what the bible says.

Obviously we can confidently say that humanity when left too its own designs would not have developed sophistocated ethics.

Uh…I would disagree.

Yet in the areas where that the judeo-christian ethic has an historical basis we have seen advancements in human dignity.

Across the board? I think historians would disagree.

We still have a ways to go but we’ve certainly made progress. This should be evidence enough of the Bibles ability to transend the era in which it was written.

So any progress has to have come from the bible? You just see this as indisputable? Even if the bible promotes slavery and rape?

 

[celluloid]

I think the first argument is rather silly. If all we are is evolved protoplasm, then there is no such thing as morality. Animals can’t do anything morally wrong. If all we are are well evolved animals then there is no ultimate morality.

If this is this case atheist have no moral duty to speak truth. If this is the case, I can own slaves and rape people and in one thousand year no one will know or care.

And yet I do have morals (despite my many shortcomings), as do other atheists. Whether or not you think those morals ultimately came from God, or are only effective with a threat of afterlife punishment, that is beside the point. We do have morals, crude and lacking from your perspective perhaps, but a basic decency is there. And out of that decency may come a desire to speak the truth as we believe it to be.

 

[deb1]

And yet I do have morals (despite my many shortcomings), as do other atheists. Whether or not you think those morals ultimately came from God, or are only effective with a threat of afterlife punishment, that is beside the point. We do have morals, crude and lacking from your perspective perhaps, but a basic decency is there. And out of that decency may come a desire to speak the truth as we believe it to be.

Of course you have morals. There are many people of different faiths who are far better humans then I am. I have to respect them for this.

It would make an interesting thread as to where atheist morals come from, but it might derail the thread to start on this here.

 

[corvidae]

Hardly. Have you heard of hammurabi? And it could be said that our modern concepts of social justice evolved despite christianity, not because of it.

Have you read the Hammurabi stella?

Hammurabit had a draconian sense of justice at any rate.
wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

read it, it is not the wonderful justice you seem to invision it being. Was it the first set of codified laws. That we know of yes.
Did it bring order, probably. Would we use it today, emphatically NO.

A lone Raven

 

[estesbob]

Statistics may be lies, but the bible still promotes slavery and rape. Saying the bible is a good source of morality is a joke.

I am not aware of where Scripture promotes slavery or rape, Could you give us the verses where this is done?

 

[utunumsint]

Most religions have a version of the golden rule (or the law of non contradiction). It is a self evident ethical proposition brought to its fullest form by Christ.

“Mathew 7:12 Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.”

To think that the Old Testament is a catechism of morals doesn’t make sense.

Thanks,
Ut

 

[corvidae]

Also, not everything in the bible is seen as condoned by the bible. For example, king david had several wives, as did his son soloman, yet both Christians and Jews believe that this was wrong, and it seems to me at least, see it as the great kings putting their own desires above the desires of God. Also is David with Bathsheba. You could say that the bible therefore condones adultery and murder, but that is plainly not what it means.

A lone Raven

 

[Axion]

It’s funny how Christians always try to pretend like the old testament isn’t part of the bible when it disagrees with their beliefs, but feel free to treat it as the divine truth whenever it agrees with them.

You’re failing to acknowledge the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism, which is Jesus’s teachings of the New Covenant. Christians read the Old testament through the New. hence we don’t sacrifice beasts in the temple or avoid eating shellfish or wearing polycotton fabrics. Therefore you seek to judge Christianity on rules it does not adhere to.

And, do note, I quoted the new testament as well.

The New Testament quotes are nothing to do with legalising slavery, but are instructions to Christians in whatever condition of life to see their primary goal as doing good and attaining God’s Kingdom. The whole Gospel screams out that we must not persecute or oppress others, which is why so many Christians opposed slavery.

I also find it funny that you feel the need to ramp up the size of the text in your posts. Rude, says I.

Easier to read, says I

1. Jewish morality is bad
2. Christian morality is bad.

Feel better? I criticized Judaism first.

I wasn’t talking only about you, but various writers and commentators who try to criticise Christianity by misusing Old Testament quotes.

Christianity never abolished slavery, the United States did. And plenty of other countries, who are not primarily Christian, have abolished slavery.

Christian countries are the only ones to have abolished slavery independently, and the arguments that triumphed were based on Christian morality. Non-christian countries that have abolished slavery over the past two centuries have done so under strong Christian pressure.

You know what else dissapeared in a few centuries when Christianity took over Rome? Rome.

Western Rome, not Eastern.

“Darwinianism” doesn’t say any such things, it just points out the way things work in the wild. Animals also rape, kill, and run around naked. Simply pointing this out doesn’t condone it for human societies.

But many people (Social-Darwinists) have done. Survival of the Fittest is a doctrine direct from the pages of Darwin and it contains a morality which encompasses slavery. It has been used to justify theories of racial superiority used in turn to justify slavery, genocide and other forms of oppression. There is no answer to these wrongs in Darwinian-rationalist argument. The strong SHOULD prevail, and it is their “sad” duty to see that the inferior do not succeed, and crowd out the “fit”.

 

[Maranatha]

And yet I do have morals (despite my many shortcomings), as do other atheists. Whether or not you think those morals ultimately came from God, or are only effective with a threat of afterlife punishment, that is beside the point. We do have morals, crude and lacking from your perspective perhaps, but a basic decency is there. And out of that decency may come a desire to speak the truth as we believe it to be.

Your putting words in my mouth.

I didn’t say that morals are only effective with a threat of afterlife punishment.

I didn’t say that you or other atheist don’t have morals. Many athiest clearly do have morals.

I didn’t say that your morals are crude or lacking in decency.

All I pointed out was that without a fixed reference point all morals are relative. If morals are relative, then they really dont exist.

 

[Maranatha]

So you’re saying no other culture in the world has morals?

On the contrary, the fact that most religions teach remarkably similar moral systems is evidence that there is a absolute moral system that exists outside human culture.

The Argument from Conscience is one of the proof for God’s existence.

The simple, intuitive point of the argument from conscience is that everyone in the world knows, deep down, that he is absolutely obligated to be and do good, and this absolute obligation could come only from God. Thus everyone knows God, however obscurely, by this moral intuition, which we usually call conscience. Conscience is the voice of God in the soul.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Most religions have a version of the golden rule (or the law of non contradiction). It is a self evident ethical proposition brought to its fullest form by Christ.

“Mathew 7:12 Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets.”

To think that the Old Testament is a catechism of morals doesn’t make sense.

Hillel said “what is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbour”, whist Jesus taught “Love your enemeies, and do good to them that hate you”.

There is probably a connection, Jesus would certainly have known of Hillel, but the sayings are not the same by any means.

As for what I call the “Evil Bible” argument, the Bible is written for adults. It is not full of Sunday school morality, although Sunday school is not too bad as an approximation for little children.

In wars, atrocities happen, often they happen on our side, often the atrocities are an important part of the winning strategy. The Bible acknowledges this frankly,

 

[celluloid]

Your putting words in my mouth.

I didn’t say that morals are only effective with a threat of afterlife punishment.

I didn’t say that you or other atheist don’t have morals. Many athiest clearly do have morals.

I didn’t say that your morals are crude or lacking in decency.

All I pointed out was that without a fixed reference point all morals are relative. If morals are relative, then they really dont exist.

And all that is beside the point. People in this thread seemed to wonder why all the fuss over what atheists regard as a non-existent being, and I said in part that it was a moral duty speak the truth. You dismissed that argument, calling it “rather silly” and implying there is no such thing as morality for atheists because of evolution.

But that’s fine. You acknowledge that an atheist may have good morals. And if that is true, then my original statement is not silly, since perceiving a responsibility to speak the truth and actually doing so is being morally responsible.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. There is nothing specific to atheism that implies telling the world about it. Atheism is lack of belief in God (although it could be called a belief that God is man-made and the universe is naturally made, but that is for another thread – I disagree with many atheists in that I think atheism is actually a simple belief), nothing more. Any moral impulse is going to come from something external to simple atheism, which may be a cause of the confusion. Atheism ain’t a religion. Moral beliefs are either regarded by atheists as good things to hold by themselves separately or are incorporated into whatever religions they do belong to (forms of buddhism, secular humanism).

And of course many atheists simply like to take an axe to religious belief out of anger or guilty pleasure. I think that’s a destructive impulse that does more harm than good.

But individual atheists, as humanists, or as human beings, will feel the urge to speak out just on the basis of an obligation to make the world a better place. If there are opposing views, we should negotiate, at least talk about it. I don’t always agree with Harris on some points, but he’s right that we should ignore the taboo and put religious beliefs up for normal public discussion. And he seems very sincere when he says he was inspired to write his first book “End of Faith” because of 9/11.

 

[Mersenne]

You’re failing to acknowledge the fundamental difference between Christianity and Judaism, which is Jesus’s teachings of the New Covenant. Christians read the Old testament through the New. hence we don’t sacrifice beasts in the temple or avoid eating shellfish or wearing polycotton fabrics. Therefore you seek to judge Christianity on rules it does not adhere to.

I seek to judge Christianity on statements found in it’s bible and still considered to be the divine word of god.

The New Testament quotes are nothing to do with legalising slavery, but are instructions to Christians in whatever condition of life to see their primary goal as doing good and attaining God’s Kingdom. The whole Gospel screams out that we must not persecute or oppress others, which is why so many Christians opposed slavery.

The new testament quotes condone slavery, it doesn’t legalize it because the legal precedent had already been set, but it continues to treat it as a legitimate institution. If you are a slave, and you are seperated from your family, and you are being beaten, if you try to escape to meet back up with your family, you are sinning, you are doing something wrong in god’s eyes.

Easier to read, says I

If you or anyone else has a hard time reading posts, they could just ramp up the font in their browser settings. Increasing the font size of your own posts only increases the size relative to everyone else’s posts. It’s like typing in all caps. It’s very rude.

Christian countries are the only ones to have abolished slavery independently, and the arguments that triumphed were based on Christian morality. Non-christian countries that have abolished slavery over the past two centuries have done so under strong Christian pressure.

Okay, so now you’re switching from claiming that only christian countries abolished slavery to saying it only happens under “christian pressure” which is impossible to know and by all likihood untrue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Japan

so while slavery was starting to be considered a discusting practice in Japan, catholic priests were bringing over slaves as gifts, ultimately being freed by the Japanese.

It also becomes a difficult claim because most of the world was a Christian colony at some point in time. By your logic anything any country has done in the last 400 years could be seen as a result of “christian influence”. But as another poster pointed out, the proof is in the pudding. All we can know for sure is what the bible says, and it clearly supports slavery.

But many people (Social-Darwinists) have done. Survival of the Fittest is a doctrine direct from the pages of Darwin and it contains a morality which encompasses slavery. It has been used to justify theories of racial superiority used in turn to justify slavery, genocide and other forms of oppression.

What it has been used to justify is hardly relevent. I could twist the Nebraska State driver’s guide to support gang violence if I want, that doesn’t mean it’s actually anything close to what it says. What’s important is what it says, and the facts of evolution make no statement about morality.

Yes, darwin was a racist and and bought into the unevolved sense of morals of his generation. That’s why, in science, we don’t have holy scriptures, prophets, or believe anything came from the mouth of god. Darwin’s ideas on specification are great. His ideas on social justice are dumb. Many scientists are christians, buddhists, racists, wiccans, or communists. I don’t have to buy into their morality to buy into their science.

There is no answer to these wrongs in Darwinian-rationalist argument. The strong SHOULD prevail, and it is their “sad” duty to see that the inferior do not succeed, and crowd out the “fit”.

There is also no answer to these wrongs in the behavior of the honey bee. There’s no answer to these wrongs in the invention of the lightbulb. None of these ideas attempt to establish a framework for moral thinking.