Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?

[Haven]

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?

[AgnosticBoy]

After 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.

Translation: Hold her captive until you wear down her will and then she's all yours.

Sure, 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?

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.

14 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

If you are not pleased with her----his option, not hers.

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.

and that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord

The girl in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't get that break, does she?

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:
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.

To me, the whole depends-on-the-culture defense still seems like just a "Might Makes Right" argument.

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]

Sure, 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 seems to me like a politician's way of saying exactly the same thing.

while also trying to establish a connection.

Yeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"

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

Didn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?

and that's not unprecedented since even slaves can leave their masters on their own accord

The girl in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 doesn't get that break, does she?

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.

Isn't that itself an argument from silence?

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.

This isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.

To me, the whole depends-on-the-culture defense still seems like just a "Might Makes Right" argument.

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.

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.

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]

Sure, 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 seems to me like a politician's way of saying exactly the same thing.

Please offer a logical reason that disproves or shows why my scenario is not possible.

while also trying to establish a connection.

Yeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"

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.

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

Didn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?

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.

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.

Isn't that itself an argument from silence?

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.

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.

This isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.

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?

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.

post #49.

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.

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.

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 argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Haven in post #1]

Does the Bible contain more than human wisdom?

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).

Is there any evidence of divine authorship?

I'd hope not, or that divinity is sorely lacking IMO.

[Athetotheist]

while also trying to establish a connection.

Yeah, some connection....."I feel your pain, hot mama!!"

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.

No offense, but I think it's more honorable for a man to prefer being with a woman he doesn't have to manipulate.

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

Didn't the Nuremberg Defense run something like that?

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.

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?

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.

Isn't that itself an argument from silence?

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.

You admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.

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.

This isn't about the Pauline epistles; it's about Deuteronomy. Paul's take on the law isn't relevant to my argument.

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?

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).

I never said anything about a "dominant" culture. I've said that laws are relative to culture and country.

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?

You nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.

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.

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 argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.

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]

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.

No offense, but I think it's more honorable for a man to prefer being with a woman he doesn't have to manipulate.

I'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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

You admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.

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?

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?

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).

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.

I never said anything about a "dominant" culture. I've said that laws are relative to culture and country.

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?

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.

You nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.

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.

"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.

My argument in response to Haven is that different countries have different laws. Not sure how that means we shouldn't have laws.

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.

I agree.

[Athetotheist]

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?

No. 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.

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.

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.

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.....

What if those people were being immoral to begin with? That is also part of the biblical account.

The first thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.

Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?

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.

You admitted that the law offered nothing to the woman I brought up.

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?

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).

You nor Haven have NO justification for imposing your standards or another culture.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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]

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?

No. 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.

Manipulation 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Given the modern standards which inform our judgement, I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim any such right.

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?!

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.

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? Is the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?

The thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.

I would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?

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".

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?

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).

Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.

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.

I'm agnostic on that issue. Nonbelievers and believers have not convinced me otherwise.

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.

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?

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]

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?

No. 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.

Manipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way.

Taking an innocent bystander captive is controlling and unfair.

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.

Her whole life is changed [manipulated] when she's taken captive.

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.

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.

Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you?

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.

Given the modern standards which inform our judgement, I'm assuming that you wouldn't claim any such right.

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?!

Let's keep "standards", "logic" and "evidence" in mind as we go on....

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.

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?

By what objective standard do you think it's right?

Is the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?

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.

The thing to remember is that it's standard practice for aggressors to write justification for their aggression into their records.

I would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

You're not providing any logic or evidence that they're right.

Second, how are you defining "immoral"? Whose "standards" are you imposing on those people? Yours? The Bible's?

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".

Then why apply the Bible standard specifically, unless it's the subjective one you prefer?

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?

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).

Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.

Technically, adultery carried a death sentence (Deut. 22:22). Jesus allows divorce for fornication in Matthew, but not in Mark or Luke.

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.

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?

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.

After all the high-minded talk about "objective standards", isn't this a cop-out? Opinions are subjective.

[AgnosticBoy]

Manipulation involves controlling or influencing someone in an unfair or devious way.

Taking an innocent bystander captive is controlling and unfair.

That'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.

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.

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.

Her whole life is changed [manipulated] when she's taken captive.

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.

Why did you change the scenario and not answer the two specific points I posed to you?

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.

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.

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.

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?

By what objective standard do you think it's right?

I wouldn't say it's objectively moral, but it's certainly not force or manipulation.

Is the only possible way to get with her is through coercion and/or manipulation?

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.

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.

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 would expect them to. There's usually a reason for wiping out an entire civilization. Doesn't mean they're wrong.

You're not providing any logic or evidence that they're right.

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.

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".

Then why apply the Bible standard specifically, unless it's the subjective one you prefer?

There is a difference between saying that the Jews killed for a justified (legal?) reason vs. Saying their justification is objective.

Jesus allowed remarriage when adultery was involved.

Technically, adultery carried a death sentence (Deut. 22:22). Jesus allows divorce for fornication in Matthew, but not in Mark or Luke.

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.

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.

After all the high-minded talk about "objective standards", isn't this a cop-out? Opinions are subjective.

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.