Did God really shout to his son?

[marco]

Matthew tells us:

" And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.�


Billions of babies get baptized but the Voice doesn't express delight. I've checked to see if this Voice was heard by any Roman writer of the time but apparently it was a local phenomenon for Christ's pointless ceremony. Sadly nothing concrete was dropped from what is called heaven but I suppose that could have ended in tragedy, for it's one thing for a pigeon to descend on the jubilant Jesus, quite another for a ton of gold to hit him. So all we have is the testimony of unstable Matthew to let us know about this fantastic piece of history.


Can we take the tale as a symbolic tribute to Christ, rather than fact?
Does the Bible lose credibility through Matthew's indulgence in such stories?

[Tcg]

Sorry, I don’t think that is true that atheists would want to hear.

It's nice of you to apologize for doubting the honest testimony of fellow posters.

Holding a negative view of atheists seems to be a requirement to bolster up some theologies. Holding a realistic view would cause to many cherished doctrines to crash to the ground.


Tcg

[marco]

[Replying to post 47 by marco]

Lets go back to God bellowing from the sky.

How is that any better a claim than the one made about what Einstein thought about gods?

Did the bees tell you of their arrogance toward YHWH or is that just what your interpretations of their movements inform you...

I don't know what claim Einstein made about gods - I did not mention this. You have misunderstood.

Regarding ants and bees, you have misunderstood.

Perhaps it is best to avoid figurative language. The simple question was about God talking from the sky to commend his son. Whether he whispered or shouted or spoke multilingually is of no great importance.

[Zzyzx]

.

Sorry, I don’t think that is true that atheists would want to hear. But, I think that doesn’t matter, because by what the Bible tells, believing is not the point, right understanding, wisdom of the just, righteousness is. It is not useful, if person believes God exists, if he is not righteous. And for to becomes righteous, Bible is enough.

So, it is righteous to keep slaves and beat them as long as they don't die immediately? To destroy cultures that worship competing 'gods'? To rape a single woman as long as you pay her father fifty shekels ($14) and marry her?

Those are all according to the Bible. Right?

[1213]

So, it is righteous to keep slaves and beat them as long as they don't die immediately? To destroy cultures that worship competing 'gods'? To rape a single woman as long as you pay her father fifty shekels ($14) and marry her?
Those are all according to the Bible. Right?

Where it is said in the Bible that it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy? Destroy is only one that I can agree that can be righteous, if it is evil that is destroyed.

[Difflugia]

Where it is said in the Bible that it is righteous to rape, beat or destroy? Destroy is only one that I can agree that can be righteous, if it is evil that is destroyed.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is quoted often enough that I'm always surprised when someone forgets about it:

When you go out to battle against your enemies, and Yahweh your God delivers them into your hands and you carry them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her, and desire to take her as your wife, then you shall bring her home to your house. She shall shave her head and trim her nails. She shall take off the clothing of her captivity, and shall remain in your house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month. After that you shall go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.

Notice there's no condition of "and she agrees to be your wife." Whether it's painted in the colors of marriage or not, "you shall go in to her" without consent is rape.

So, is rape righteous if it is evil's daughter that is raped?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by Difflugia]

So you equate marriage with rape do you ?

Arranged marriages were, (and still are) part of many cultures and by definition that means the woman often (but by no means always) had little or no choice in the matter. There is no reason however to conclude that in such a context the word marriage becomes a synonym for rape. They remain two seperate and not necessarily related acts and to insist they merge is it impose a westerners bias that reduces most of the men of the non-western world to the role of and sexually depraved savages.

A more balanced view demands one acknowledges that while the biblical narrative contains no explicit statement of consent there is no statement of refusal either, and that given the circumstances marriage may well have been considered an advantageous option for the girl and one to which she would readily consent.

There is no mention of rape in the passage referred to.


JW


RELATED POSTS


Does the bible command or endorse rape?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 946#976946

[Mithrae]

A more balanced view demands one acknowledges that while the biblical narrative contains no explicit statement of consent there is no statement of refusal either, and that given the circumstances marriage may well have been considered an advantageous option for the girl and one to which she would readily consent.

Those circumstances being "If you don't marry me I'll kill you like I killed your parents, friends and brothers"? Yeah, under those circumstances I might 'consent' to marrying him too!

Note that in another passage it is made abundantly clear that the purpose of allowing some victims of the slaughter to live was certainly not to spare the innocent and set them free, nor even to keep them as a useful slaves; if that were the case boys and women who'd been married could make fine servants. Instead the Israelite men are commanded by God to "kill all the boys, and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man" (Numbers 31:17-18).

It does make sense in terms of population logistics; when plagues, famine and warfare could wipe out large fractions of the population at a time, keeping the girls alive as baby factories was surely a beneficial approach. We can acknowledge that pragmatism, at least. We can even acknowledge that in commanding marriage to those girls, rather than treating them as disposable sex objects or relegating them to the status of concubines, the Torah at least imposed some meagre limits on how cruelly they were being treated. But let's not be so callous as to pretend that a young girl's purely hypothetical 'consent' to becoming the sexual partner of a man who'd killed her friends and family, under the direct or implied threat of meeting the same grisly fate, somehow changes the fact that it was indeed mass rape which your deity sanctioned.

[Difflugia]

So you equate marriage with rape do you ?

Only if it involves nonconsensual sex.

Arranged marriages were, (and still are) part of many cultures and by definition that means the woman often (but by no means always) had little or no choice in the matter.

So you equate nonconsensual sex with marriage as long as it's arranged do you?

There's a bright line. Nonconsensual sex is rape.

There is no reason however to conclude that in such a context the word marriage becomes a synonym for rape.

No, there is one reason. If what's called "marriage" involves nonconsensual sex, then it's rape.

They remain two seperate and not necessarily related acts...

That's right. Marriage and rape. If whatever defines "marriage" involves nonconsensual sex, then it can be both marriage and rape.

...and to insist they merge is it impose a westerners bias that reduces most of the men of the non-western world to the role of and sexually depraved savages.

My bias isn't what did that.

A more balanced view demands one acknowledges that while the biblical narrative contains no explicit statement of consent there is no statement of refusal either...

That's rape.

...and that given the circumstances marriage may well have been considered an advantageous option for the girl and one to which she would readily consent.

You do realize that the "circumstances" involve the woman or girl being a captive, right? Do you think there's a provision that if she doesn't want to be your "wife" then she'll be allowed to go free? Obtaining consent through intimidation and coercion is still rape. You do realize that, right?

There is no mention of rape in the passage referred to.

Right. Only sex without consent, which is different when gods endorse it.

[marco]

So you equate marriage with rape do you ?

He obviously does not. Do you equate kindness with forced servility and compulsory sexual union?

It is outrageous to suggest HEAVEN has authorised the enslavement of girls and then calling the union with their master "marriage." As with your views on Abraham's attempted sexual murder of his son I find your viewpoint on the darker aspects of the Bible rather disappointing, to say the least.

There is no mention of rape in the passage referred to.

And is force to be identified by the actual mention of a particular word? Is what is described not sufficient? You suggest "arranged marriage"; the flaw in this is that there was no arrangement - it was an imposed union on someone who had no choice. What is worse is that you are suggesting God is thoroughly happy with "arranged marriages."

Of course if one accepts Jehovah's instructions to the centenarian Abraham

" 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised"

then laughter is the best response. Sadly, by extension, many Muslims practise female circumcision, a brutal abuse of little girls. And we can trace brutality back to God..... why not give him more than he desires?

[JehovahsWitness]

Those circumstances being "If you don't marry me I'll kill you like I killed your parents, friends and brothers"?

Where did you read such a thing?

There is no passage in scripture that indicates that if a girl even a foreign slave, refused a marriage proposal she would be executed! Murder was strictly prohibited under the Mosaic law any killing outside of war was regulated by such law. The ancient Jews were not American slave owners and did not have the right to arbitrarily kill their slaves.

Perhaps one should be careful not to confuse biblical history with a particularly riveting episode of "Game of Thrones" .

JW