One of the most prominent claims Christians make about the Bible is that it is the word of their god, and is ultimately of divine origin (either through God controlling the human authors, dictating words to them, or 'inspiring' them to write).
If this purported authorship by an omniscient being were true, one would expect the Bible to be more scientifically and ethically advanced than the average person of the time and place (1000 BCE-100 CE, Middle East & Mediterranean -- the Ancient Near East [ANE]).
One would expect to find, for example, scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe and Earth, the animals that inhabit the planet, the origin of humanity, the nature of earthquakes, floods, and climate, and so on. One would expect useful insights on how to cure diseases, make childbirth safer, develop technologies to improve lives and help those with disabilities, et cetera.
Finally, one would expect an advanced moral vision, one that explicitly condemns slavery and sexual exploitation, affirms the equality of all nations, stands against war and genocide, declares the equality and inclusion of women and LGBTQIA people, and implores us to care for the Earth, avoiding disasters like famines, pandemics, climate change, pollution, and so on.
________________
The problem, for Christianity, is that no such advanced wisdom is found in the Bible. Instead, we have a collection of writings that by and large affirm the common knowledges, beliefs, and prejudices of the human inhabitants of the ANE.
One finds, for example, numerous scientifically inaccurate passages about the Earth being flat and resting on pillars, life being created in six days, the sky being made of water above a "firmament" and so on. It contains a statement that showing striped sticks to goats will cause their offspring to be striped. It says that a menstrual cycle made a woman "unclean."
The Bible contains numerous passages on planting crops, slaughtering animals, and reaping grain, but no accurate information on how to cure diseases or make childbirth safer. It contains no mention of mental illness, but talks endlessly about demons and devils causing illness, deafness, and insanity. It is about as scientifically accurate as an average ANE peasant.
__________
The Bible's moral vision also reflects a viewpoint that cannot be called advanced in any way. It calls homosexuality an abomination, but condones slavery, pedophilia (old men 'marrying' young girls), concubinage (sex slavery), and polygyny (many women / young girls 'marrying' one man, often for political reasons). It prevaricates on rape, calling for the death penalty when the victim is a "virgin," but also says a woman must marry her rapist. It says that a woman who doesn't scream loud enough is lying about being raped, and should be stoned to death for "adultery."
The Bible is extremely sexist in general, saying that women are subservient, influenced by evil, weak-minded, weak-bodied, created as men's "helpers" (not equals), not fit to speak in church, should be "silent" with "all subjection," and generally made to be vessels for birth, homemakers and little more. Christian scripture is also racist, explicitly affirming the Jews as God's "chosen people," and giving them favorable treatment compared to the rest of humanity.
It is violent and warlike, containing commands to wipe out entire ethnicities (Amalekites, Merathaimites), kill civilians (including children), take young girls as sex slaves / spoils of war, execute people for religious disagreements, and take/trade slaves. The Bible condemns gender non-conforming people, but commands slaves to serve their masters with subjugation, and never once says slavery is in any way immoral or not the "natural state of things." It says non-human animals are mere objects for human exploitation.
_________
I can go on and on and on, but the point should be obvious--the scientific and moral content of the Bible is more backward than even the most reactionary fundamentalist today. Far from advancing a more enlightened, wise viewpoint, its content is very human and very dated to the time and place in which it was written. It appears clear that the Biblical record contains human wisdom and foolishness, rather than any kind of divine communication.
Debate question: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom? Is there any evidence of divine authorship?
Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Moderator: Moderators
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
- Contact:
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #51Sure, during the month's time, it's possible that the guy may simply try to break her down to where she just gives in. It's also possible that during that time, the guy can help her come to terms with the situation while also trying to establish a connection. Keep in mind that this is not a case involving a kidnapper and a child, but rather it's the case of a soldier carrying out what he believed to be justified acts of war, and he comes across someone he's attracted to. Like I said before, why not?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmTranslation: Hold her captive until you wear down her will and then she's all yours.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 amAfter she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
Either way, we shouldn't assume that the girl has to stick around with the guy either, esp. since I brought up information that would indicate otherwise.
True. I find it possible that even if a wife could not initiate a divorce, but she could request that her husband does it and make it a living hell until he follows through. But I think my next point shows that even requesting a divorce is not needed if the girl can just separate.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmIf you are not pleased with her----his option, not hers.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 am14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her[/b].
And keep in mind, there is an option to letting her go
Why not? Your point seems to be an argument from silence. We can't infer that the wife can not separate (without divorce) just because the Bible says nothing about it. If such a scenario was immoral then the apostle Paul was out of line to make these immoral suggestions:Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmThe girl in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't get that break, does she?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 amand that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
That might be involved but that doesn't validate moral judgements that are rooted in cultural bias. Refer to my response to Haven, post #49.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmTo me, the whole depends-on-the-culture defense still seems like just a "Might Makes Right" argument.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #52That seems to me like a politician's way of saying exactly the same thing.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmSure, during the month's time, it's possible that the guy may simply try to break her down to where she just gives in. It's also possible that during that time, the guy can help her come to terms with the situation
Yeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"AgnosticBoy" wrote:while also trying to establish a connection.
Didn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?AgnosticBoy wrote:Keep in mind that this is not a case involving a kidnapper and a child, but rather it's the case of a soldier carrying out what he believed to be justified acts of war
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmThe girl in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't get that break, does she?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 amand that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord
Isn't that itself an argument from silence?AgnosticBoy wrote:Why not? Your point seems to be an argument from silence. We can't infer that the wife can not separate (without divorce) just because the Bible says nothing about it.
This isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.AgnosticBoy wrote:If such a scenario was immoral then the apostle Paul was out of line to make these immoral suggestions:
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmTo me, the whole depends-on-the-culture defense still seems like just a "Might Makes Right" argument.
After looking at your response to Haven, it still seems to me you're arguing that might makes right by suggesting that the dominant culture should prevail over the safety and dignity of the individual.AgnosticBoy wrote:That might be involved but that doesn't validate moral judgements that are rooted in cultural bias. Refer to my response to Haven, post #49.
You talked about legality. Without laws, the powerful can conquer through force and take everything they want. Thus, the powerful don't need laws to remain powerful. The only legitimate reason----the only logical reason----for laws to exist is to set limits on power for the protection of those who don't have it.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
- Contact:
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #53Please offer a logical reason that disproves or shows why my scenario is not possible.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amThat seems to me like a politician's way of saying exactly the same thing.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmSure, during the month's time, it's possible that the guy may simply try to break her down to where she just gives in. It's also possible that during that time, the guy can help her come to terms with the situation
That's an oversimplified way of putting it. I'm sure we can think of some sincere ways that a guy can connect with a woman while showing true empathy. Consider that a months time is the minimum, but if I were in that position and I really wanted her, then I'd be willing to go two, three, or four months to wait. Just because you feel that it can't be pulled off doesn't speak to the ability of another man or all men.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amYeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"
Well let's first consider if the war was justified. If that's not in dispute in that the war was justified, then the second scenario is valid.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amDidn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmKeep in mind that this is not a case involving a kidnapper and a child, but rather it's the case of a soldier carrying out what he believed to be justified acts of war
Not in my case because I brought up a way the wife can get to use the law to hr advantage and I supplemented my points with the NT.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmIsn't that itself an argument from silence?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 amWhy not? Your point seems to be an argument from silence. We can't infer that the wife can not separate (without divorce) just because the Bible says nothing about it.
You're arguing as if the moral Law is no longer relevant to the NT. Why do you think the moral behaviors brought up in the NT are compatible with the moral laws of the OT? How would you even know what sin is, like incest, bestiality, etc?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amThis isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmIf such a scenario was immoral then the apostle Paul was out of line to make these immoral suggestions:
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Romans7:7-8...
7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”[a] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead.
I never said anything about a "dominant" culture. I've said that laws are relative to culture and country. You nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture. I mean you can do it but you haven't proven which is right other than arguing from how your culture does things.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amAfter looking at your response to Haven, it still seems to me you're arguing that might makes right by suggesting that the dominant culture should prevail over the safety and dignity of the individual.
My argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 am You talked about legality. Without laws, the powerful can conquer through force and take everything they want. Thus, the powerful don't need laws to remain powerful. The only legitimate reason----the only logical reason----for laws to exist is to set limits on power for the protection of those who don't have it.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #54[Replying to Haven in post #1]
Being that it was written by humans, I doubt it. Even if it's divinely inspired, I doubt a person could accurately write down anything worthy from anything divine, as people are flawed and imperfect and a divine being is thought to be perfect (at least this one is).Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
I'd hope not, or that divinity is sorely lacking IMO.Is there any evidence of divine authorship?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #55No offense, but I think it's more honorable for a man to prefer being with a woman he doesn't have to manipulate.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmThat's an oversimplified way of putting it. I'm sure we can think of some sincere ways that a guy can connect with a woman while showing true empathy. Consider that a months time is the minimum, but if I were in that position and I really wanted her, then I'd be willing to go two, three, or four months to wait. Just because you feel that it can't be pulled off doesn't speak to the ability of another man or all men.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amYeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amDidn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmKeep in mind that this is not a case involving a kidnapper and a child, but rather it's the case of a soldier carrying out what he believed to be justified acts of war
If a band of nomads invaded your land, put your people to the sword, destroyed your sacred places, plundered the wealth of your city and took you captive, would you consider that war justified?AgnosticBoy wrote:Well let's first consider if the war was justified. If that's not in dispute in that the war was justified, then the second scenario is valid.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 10:04 pmIsn't that itself an argument from silence?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:43 amWhy not? Your point seems to be an argument from silence. We can't infer that the wife can not separate (without divorce) just because the Bible says nothing about it.
You admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.AgnosticBoy wrote:Not in my case because I brought up a way the wife can get to use the law to hr advantage and I supplemented my points with the NT.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amThis isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmIf such a scenario was immoral then the apostle Paul was out of line to make these immoral suggestions:
1 Corinthians 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.
1 Corinthians 7:10-11 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
For an agnostic, you sure talk like a preacher. You're arguing as if the Bible contains the only moral code ever known to humankind. And Paul isn't known for having had that high an opinion of women (1 Corinthians 11:5-6 & 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15).AgnosticBoy wrote:You're arguing as if the moral Law is no longer relevant to the NT. Why do you think the moral behaviors brought up in the NT are compatible with the moral laws of the OT? How would you even know what sin is, like incest, bestiality, etc?
You haven't used the word "dominant", but isn't that what it amounts to? Doesn't the dominant culture in every country make the laws there?AgnosticBoy wrote:I never said anything about a "dominant" culture. I've said that laws are relative to culture and country.
The standards we're "imposing" are not ours. We didn't make these standards up; they've been widely recognized as inherent human rights throughout the world for generations.AgnosticBoy wrote:You nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 am You talked about legality. Without laws, the powerful can conquer through force and take everything they want. Thus, the powerful don't need laws to remain powerful. The only legitimate reason----the only logical reason----for laws to exist is to set limits on power for the protection of those who don't have it.
My point is that if the laws of a society don't protect those who don't have power, that society is no better than one which doesn't have laws.AgnosticBoy wrote:My argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
- Contact:
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #56I'm not sure if you're trying to make an argument or just offering opinion. If it's an argument then you shouldn't just presume that manipulation is going on, but instead you need to prove that is the case. While supporting your claims, you should also address my counter arguments instead of just ignoring them.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmNo offense, but I think it's more honorable for a man to prefer being with a woman he doesn't have to manipulate.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pm That's an oversimplified way of putting it. I'm sure we can think of some sincere ways that a guy can connect with a woman while showing true empathy. Consider that a months time is the minimum, but if I were in that position and I really wanted her, then I'd be willing to go two, three, or four months to wait. Just because you feel that it can't be pulled off doesn't speak to the ability of another man or all men.
In light of my points, is it possible for a captor and the captive to get together in a way that doesn't involve coercion nor manipulation?
We can even modify the scenario. There's a guy with a 23 y/o daughter. He goes to rob a bank and I shoot and kill him. I discover his daughter and find myself being highly attracted to her. Since this is a debate, please use logic and evidence to show that it is wrong for me to try to start a relationship with her. On a related note, please also use logic and evidence to show that the only possible way to get with her is via coercion and/or manipulation.
The point here is to flush out any assumptions or even modern-day sensibilities which I feel are being used to inform your judgement on this matter.
Is this an appeal to emotion? Who it happens to does not determine if the war is justified or not. Why it happened is what matters. I may be upset at first depending on the situation, but then after some time I have to come to terms with the facts, and accept if my parents were at fault.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmIf a band of nomads invaded your land, put your people to the sword, destroyed your sacred places, plundered the wealth of your city and took you captive, would you consider that war justified?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmWell let's first consider if the war was justified. If that's not in dispute in that the war was justified, then the second scenario is valid.
Not quite. The law offers nothing to them in terms of being able to initiate a divorce themselves. But a work around to that is to just demand a divorce from the husband. If that doesn't happen then she can just leave. Does the Bible say that a wife can't separate or just leave?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmYou admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot in my case because I brought up a way the wife can get to use the law to hr advantage and I supplemented my points with the NT.
As an agnostic, the only obligation I have is to be skeptical or critical of views or beliefs (popular or otherwise) that are masqueraded as knowledge. And going further than Huxley, I'm also curious enough to examine the psychology of such actions.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amFor an agnostic, you sure talk like a preacher. You're arguing as if the Bible contains the only moral code ever known to humankind. And Paul isn't known for having had that high an opinion of women (1 Corinthians 11:5-6 & 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15).AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmYou're arguing as if the moral Law is no longer relevant to the NT. Why do you think the moral behaviors brought up in the NT are compatible with the moral laws of the OT? How would you even know what sin is, like incest, bestiality, etc?
Sure, that can happen. But this doesn't answer which laws or standard we should be going by, whether it be your cultural standards or someone else's. That was my point to Haven.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amYou haven't used the word "dominant", but isn't that what it amounts to? Doesn't the dominant culture in every country make the laws there?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmI never said anything about a "dominant" culture. I've said that laws are relative to culture and country.
"For generations". That alone gives it away. I don't get the logic of people who have more options, resources, education, having the expectations for people in lesser conditions, with a different culture and time period, to behave the same way. Not to mention, that some moderns even question the standards of their own generation. It isn't as if all moderns agree with each other on what's moral.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amThe standards we're "imposing" are not ours. We didn't make these standards up; they've been widely recognized as inherent human rights throughout the world for generations.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmYou nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.
I agree.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:42 amMy point is that if the laws of a society don't protect those who don't have power, that society is no better than one which doesn't have laws.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmMy argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #57No. Why? Because it's manipulation to take and hold her captive in the first place, and the manipulation facilitates the coercion. Since those factors bring about the outcome, they cannot be separated from it.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amIn light of my points, is it possible for a captor and the captive to get together in a way that doesn't involve coercion nor manipulation?
First, let's say that the guy robbing the bank had lost his job to downsizing, couldn't find other work, his unemployment insurance had run out, his debts were mounting and he was desperate to provide for his family when you shot and killed him. Please use logic and evidence to show that the daughter who loved him would want anything to do with you, or what right you would have to persist if she didn't. Given the modern standards which inform our judgement, I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim any such right.AgnosticBoy wrote:We can even modify the scenario. There's a guy with a 23 y/o daughter. He goes to rob a bank and I shoot and kill him. I discover his daughter and find myself being highly attracted to her. Since this is a debate, please use logic and evidence to show that it is wrong for me to try to start a relationship with her.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say the guy was just a greedy jerk. Since this is a debate and you want us to use logic, I should point out that you're resorting to a false analogy. The captive girl in the Bible isn't the daughter of a greedy jerk bank robber; she's a pagan girl living in a pagan land with her pagan father going about their pagan business when these nomads show up and start attacking their city.
And now you're thinking.....
The first thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.AgnosticBoy wrote:What if those people were being immoral to begin with? That is also part of the biblical account.
Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmYou admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot in my case because I brought up a way the wife can get to use the law to hr advantage and I supplemented my points with the NT.
You should remember, since you yourself quoted Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 giving what he claims is God's command that a wife is not to divorce her husband, or that if she does she should either go back to him or remain unmarried (one upside of the law is that it allows a divorced woman to marry another man; Jesus and Paul don't).AgnosticBoy wrote:Not quite. The law offers nothing to them in terms of being able to initiate a divorce themselves. But a work around to that is to just demand a divorce from the husband. If that doesn't happen then she can just leave. Does the Bible say that a wife can't separate or just leave?
AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:24 pmYou nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.
Athetotheist wrote:The standards we're "imposing" are not ours. We didn't make these standards up; they've been widely recognized as inherent human rights throughout the world for generations.
If you'll recall, the question in the OP is, "Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?" I think you may have answered that question for yourself.AgnosticBoy wrote:"For generations". That alone gives it away. I don't get the logic of people who have more options, resources, education, having the expectations for people in lesser conditions, with a different culture and time period, to behave the same way.
True enough, but let's go back to Nuremberg when the Allies were "imposing their standards" on the Nazi leaders. Which position would you have argued for?AgnosticBoy wrote:Not to mention, that some moderns even question the standards of their own generation. It isn't as if all moderns agree with each other on what's moral.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
- Contact:
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #58Manipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way. Usually if you don't kill someone during a war, you take them into custody. I assume, you can agree there since even Western nations practice that. So I fail to see where the manipulation comes in. Or perhaps your view of unfairness is subjective, otherwise who or what determines that, objectively?Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pmNo. Why? Because it's manipulation to take and hold her captive in the first place, and the manipulation facilitates the coercion. Since those factors bring about the outcome, they cannot be separated from it.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amIn light of my points, is it possible for a captor and the captive to get together in a way that doesn't involve coercion nor manipulation?
Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you? I can play that game by simply adding that the daughter disagreed with her dad and she knew very well he was in the wrong before he committed the act.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pmFirst, let's say that the guy robbing the bank had lost his job to downsizing, couldn't find other work, his unemployment insurance had run out, his debts were mounting and he was desperate to provide for his family when you shot and killed him. Please use logic and evidence to show that the daughter who loved him would want anything to do with you, or what right you would have to persist if she didn't.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amWe can even modify the scenario. There's a guy with a 23 y/o daughter. He goes to rob a bank and I shoot and kill him. I discover his daughter and find myself being highly attracted to her. Since this is a debate, please use logic and evidence to show that it is wrong for me to try to start a relationship with her.
Under either of our scenarios, let me say that the girl may be upset at first. But it's possible that she can eventually come to terms with the situation and forgive or accept that I was in the right. If that by itself happens, then I can progress to starting a relationship.
Modern standards do not inform my judgement when it comes to determinng what's true. I prefer to use logic and evidence for that. Do I still sound like a preacher?!Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Given the modern standards which inform our judgement, I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim any such right.
You didn't answer my two specific points about my scenario. If you have no answer for it then simply say so.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Now, for the sake of argument, let's say the guy was just a greedy jerk. Since this is a debate and you want us to use logic, I should point out that you're resorting to a false analogy. The captive girl in the Bible isn't the daughter of a greedy jerk bank robber; she's a pagan girl living in a pagan land with her pagan father going about their pagan business when these nomads show up and start attacking their city.
Is it wrong for me to try to start a relationship with girl after I kill her dad? Is the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?
I would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm The thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.
I'm using the Bible. That's not to say that it's proven, but then again I can't prove anyone's standard is "objective".Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?
Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmYou should remember, since you yourself quoted Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 giving what he claims is God's command that a wife is not to divorce her husband, or that if she does she should either go back to him or remain unmarried (one upside of the law is that it allows a divorced woman to marry another man; Jesus and Paul don't).AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot quite. The law offers nothing to them in terms of being able to initiate a divorce themselves. But a work around to that is to just demand a divorce from the husband. If that doesn't happen then she can just leave. Does the Bible say that a wife can't separate or just leave?
I'm agnostic on that issue. Nonbelievers and believers have not convinced me otherwise.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pm If you'll recall, the question in the OP is, "Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?" I think you may have answered that question for yourself.
Unless someone can prove to me an objective standard, I wouldn't argue any side as being right. I would offer my opinion and side with the Allies.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmTrue enough, but let's go back to Nuremberg when the Allies were "imposing their standards" on the Nazi leaders. Which position would you have argued for?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot to mention, that some moderns even question the standards of their own generation. It isn't as if all moderns agree with each other on what's moral.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2695
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #59Taking an innocent bystander captive is controlling and unfair.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pmManipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pmNo. Why? Because it's manipulation to take and hold her captive in the first place, and the manipulation facilitates the coercion. Since those factors bring about the outcome, they cannot be separated from it.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amIn light of my points, is it possible for a captor and the captive to get together in a way that doesn't involve coercion nor manipulation?
Her whole life is changed [manipulated] when she's taken captive.AgnosticBoy wrote:Usually if you don't kill someone during a war, you take them into custody. I assume, you can agree there since even Western nations practice that. So I fail to see where the manipulation comes in.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pmFirst, let's say that the guy robbing the bank had lost his job to downsizing, couldn't find other work, his unemployment insurance had run out, his debts were mounting and he was desperate to provide for his family when you shot and killed him. Please use logic and evidence to show that the daughter who loved him would want anything to do with you, or what right you would have to persist if she didn't.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amWe can even modify the scenario. There's a guy with a 23 y/o daughter. He goes to rob a bank and I shoot and kill him. I discover his daughter and find myself being highly attracted to her. Since this is a debate, please use logic and evidence to show that it is wrong for me to try to start a relationship with her.
You're the one who changed the scenario----or "modified" it, as you said, by turning the ancient pagan girl's hapless father into a nefarious modern bank robber.AgnosticBoy wrote:Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Given the modern standards which inform our judgement, I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim any such right.
Let's keep "standards", "logic" and "evidence" in mind as we go on....AgnosticBoy wrote:Modern standards do not inform my judgement when it comes to determinng what's true. I prefer to use logic and evidence for that. Do I still sound like a preacher?!
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Now, for the sake of argument, let's say the guy was just a greedy jerk. Since this is a debate and you want us to use logic, I should point out that you're resorting to a false analogy. The captive girl in the Bible isn't the daughter of a greedy jerk bank robber; she's a pagan girl living in a pagan land with her pagan father going about their pagan business when these nomads show up and start attacking their city.
By what objective standard do you think it's right?AgnosticBoy wrote:You didn't answer my two specific points about my scenario. If you have no answer for it then simply say so.
Is it wrong for me to try to start a relationship with girl after I kill her dad?
Again, yes----if those were what you had to use to get her into your clutches (remember----I'm talking about the captive in the Bible, not the bank robber's daughter of your false analogy). As for how she would react after that, while it might be theoretically possible for her to give in, I would still think that likely more often in adolescent fantasies than in life.AgnosticBoy wrote:Is the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm The thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.
You're not providing any logic or evidence that they're right.AgnosticBoy wrote:I would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pm Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?
Then why apply the Bible standard specifically, unless it's the subjective one you prefer?AgnosticBoy wrote:I'm using the Bible. That's not to say that it's proven, but then again I can't prove anyone's standard is "objective".
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmYou should remember, since you yourself quoted Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 giving what he claims is God's command that a wife is not to divorce her husband, or that if she does she should either go back to him or remain unmarried (one upside of the law is that it allows a divorced woman to marry another man; Jesus and Paul don't).AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot quite. The law offers nothing to them in terms of being able to initiate a divorce themselves. But a work around to that is to just demand a divorce from the husband. If that doesn't happen then she can just leave. Does the Bible say that a wife can't separate or just leave?
Technically, adultery carried a death sentence (Deut. 22:22). Jesus allows divorce for fornication in Matthew, but not in Mark or Luke.AgnosticBoy wrote:Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.
Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmTrue enough, but let's go back to Nuremberg when the Allies were "imposing their standards" on the Nazi leaders. Which position would you have argued for?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmNot to mention, that some moderns even question the standards of their own generation. It isn't as if all moderns agree with each other on what's moral.
After all the high-minded talk about "objective standards", isn't this a cop-out? Opinions are subjective.AgnosticBoy wrote:Unless someone can prove to me an objective standard, I wouldn't argue any side as being right. I would offer my opinion and side with the Allies.
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1617
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
- Contact:
Re: Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?
Post #60That's debatable, especially when we're dealing with warfare. Being a bystander doesn't make you innocent. You may not participate in wrong at one point in time (by resisting the Jews during warfare), but that doesn't mean that you didn't do wrong prior to the war or that you won't do wrong after the war. According to the Bible, these nations were judged to be guilty or immoral for things they did BEFORE the Jews invaded them. Those left alive AFTER the war may very well try to take revenge or still engage in immoral behavior, so that's a reason to take the remaining population into custody. Yes, that can involve force, but it's not unfair given the reasons I brought up.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmTaking an innocent bystander captive is controlling and unfair.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pm Manipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way.
Now let's just say that the Jews could've left the remaining population behind and not take them into custody. The population left alive after the wars were done were some times the women. How would leaving the girls around after everyone around them is dead, be a good thing? How would they support themselves, given the fact that there was little to no support system for women back then? That alone would be a reason to put these women into marriages if you wanted to support them.
Sure it is changed, but is it unfair? If I kill a bank robber, his daughter's life will also be changed, but are my actions immoral because of that? It also doesn't take "manipulating" someone to take them captive. Just be upfront with them and let them know you're taking them into custody.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmHer whole life is changed [manipulated] when she's taken captive.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pmUsually if you don't kill someone during a war, you take them into custody. I assume, you can agree there since even Western nations practice that. So I fail to see where the manipulation comes in.
When someone makes an argument by analogy, which is all I was doing, the response shouldn't be to change up their analogy. You could've at least answered my analogy and I would have gladly explained how your answer to it would apply to the scenario in the Bible.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:15 pmYou're the one who changed the scenario----or "modified" it, as you said, by turning the ancient pagan girl's hapless father into a nefarious modern bank robber.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 6:05 amWhy did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you?
Essentially, you're arguing that a girl would not want a guy that killed her parents. You're making an ABSOLUTE claim that it would never be possible. Part of the purpose of my analogy was to present a situation where it would be easier to see that it is possible and then work from there.
I wouldn't say it's objectively moral, but it's certainly not force or manipulation.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmBy what objective standard do you think it's right?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pm You didn't answer my two specific points about my scenario. If you have no answer for it then simply say so.
Is it wrong for me to try to start a relationship with girl after I kill her dad?
Thank you for addressing my question and acknowledging that it is possible for a girl to forgive and accept me. I accepted that your scenario was possible, as well.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmAgain, yes----if those were what you had to use to get her into your clutches (remember----I'm talking about the captive in the Bible, not the bank robber's daughter of your false analogy). As for how she would react after that, while it might be theoretically possible for her to give in, I would still think that likely more often in adolescent fantasies than in life.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pmIs the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?
You also bring up fantasies which reminds me of another point. In my modern scenario, I would have to get a woman, who's dad I killed , to accept me romantically and sexually. That's what people look for in relationships nowadays, but back then all the girl would look for is support. Arranged marriages were like a business and each person simply played their part.
I never claimed anyone was right or wrong. My point was that providing a reason for attacking a civilization does not prove that you are right or wrong.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmYou're not providing any logic or evidence that they're right.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pmI would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.
There is a difference between saying that the Jews killed for a justified (legal?) reason vs. Saying their justification is objective.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmThen why apply the Bible standard specifically, unless it's the subjective one you prefer?AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 7:37 pm I'm using the Bible. That's not to say that it's proven, but then again I can't prove anyone's standard is "objective".
Is that a contradiction or just one source offering more detail than the others? But my point is still valid because Jesus said the no divorce standard was in place from the beginning. So that's just another example of the OT rules applying to the NT. While you used divorce as an example for your point, I assume you agree that the vast majority of the moral laws from the OT apply to the NT.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:34 pmTechnically, adultery carried a death sentence (Deut. 22:22). Jesus allows divorce for fornication in Matthew, but not in Mark or Luke.
If there was an objective standard, then share it. I'll gladly be on the side of anything that can be proven to be objectively good.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 pmAfter all the high-minded talk about "objective standards", isn't this a cop-out? Opinions are subjective.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:54 pmUnless someone can prove to me an objective standard, I wouldn't argue any side as being right. I would offer my opinion and side with the Allies.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB