|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
posted December 18, 2009 07:34 PM |
|
|
On the whole rape thing
Once again curiosity drove to go straight to the source. Before I continue I want to stress that while I do speak fluent Hebrew I am NOT an expert in ancient Hebrew and since I'm only using my own knowledge I may be wrong at my interpretations of the passages. On the other hand, these particular passages use language that is quite similar to modern Hebrew and I can understand the gist of things.
The translations from Elodin's quote seem to be quite accurate. I will repost it here to save you the pain of scrolling and searching for that particular quote:
Quote:
23 If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24 then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them to death with stones; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor's wife: so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
Now, since it seems that both Elodin and me agree with that translation let's assume that it is true and focus on its interpretation. Notice that passage 23-27 speak about a betrothed damsel while 28-29 speak about the one that is not. Also, notice the words "lay hold on her" in passage 28, which to me mean a forceful relationship. So in my opinion the death penalty for sexual relationship with a woman is used in cases where the relationship was forceful, but in cases where the relationship was with a betrothed/married woman. (I think it's called adultery in English)
Just my take on things.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 18, 2009 09:43 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 21:49, 18 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Now, since it seems that both Elodin and me agree with that translation let's assume that it is true and focus on its interpretation. Notice that passage 23-27 speak about a betrothed damsel while 28-29 speak about the one that is not. Also, notice the words "lay hold on her" in passage 28, which to me mean a forceful relationship. So in my opinion the death penalty for sexual relationship with a woman is used in cases where the relationship was forceful, but in cases where the relationship was with a betrothed/married woman. (I think it's called adultery in English)
Just my take on things.
The wording of the passage excludes rape and different words are used. Let us examine the verse.
Quote:
25 But if the man find the damsel that is betrothed in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die:
26 but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter;
27 for he found her in the field, the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Now, that is clearly rape. She cried out and there was no one to save her.
In verse 25, it uses the word FORCE (cha^zaq.) This is a different word than is used in the passage below dealing with the unmarried man and woman.
Quote:
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.
Now, we see nothing is said about the woman crying out. Instead, we see the phrase "if they be found [out]." That means the sex was consensual.
Further, we see that a different phrase is used, "lay hold on." That phrase is the Hebrew word ta^phas´. If rape were intended the same word would have been used in both instances.
Now I will refer you to a good link on the subject. I'll quote a large portion, but you may wish to read the entire article.
Clicky
Quote:
My conclusion will be that this law does not command a woman to marry her rapist; it rather commands men who have sex with women to follow their sexual advances up with marital commitment, and teaches that failure to do so is forbidden by God.
Martin’s Translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Martin cites Deut 22:28-29 as dealing with a situation where “a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her.” He immediately states, without argument, that this refers to acts of rape. Although he does not say, it appears this conclusion is based on the verb “seizes” in the English version he cites. Martin imports into this word the connotation of violent, coercive, abduction so that the sexual intercourse that follows is a rape. There are several problems with this claim.
First, and most obvious, the English word “seizes” is not in The Torah. The word in The Torah is tabas; in Hebrew, tabas “does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.”[3] While the word can refer to the capture of a city,[4] it is also used for “handling” the harp and flute,[5] the sword,[6] a sickle,[7] a shield,[8] oars or a bow,[9] “taking” God’s name[10] or dealing with the law of God.[11] The word simply means to “lay hold of,” “to take hold of something” or to “grasp it in hand.” The more formal King James translation interprets the passage as, “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her.”
Second, there are good reasons in this context for interpreting the word in a manner where it does not have a connotation of force or violence. Here I will mention three.
The first reason is that the context strongly suggests it. Had the author intended to refer to rape then he would have used the word chazak which does carry the connotations Martin plays on. This is reinforced by the fact that three verses earlier the author does refer to a rape. The law immediately preceding this one begins, “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her …” here the word used is chazak, which suggests a violent seizure is used. Bahsen notes, “Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply ‘take hold of’ her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25:25 (viz., rape).”[12]
The second reason is that Deut 22:28-29 actually repeats a law which has already been laid down in the book of Exodus. When one examines this law it is clear it does not refer to rape. The word “Deuteronomy” in Greek means “second law;” throughout the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats laws already laid down in the book of Exodus, sometimes expanding on them. The Decalogue, for example, which was delivered on Sinai in Exodus 20, is repeated again in Deuteronomy 5. The laws about releasing an ebed (or indentured servant) in Exodus 21:1 are repeated and expanded on in Deuteronomy 15:12-18. The same occurs with the law under discussion. Gordon Wenham points out that that Deut 22:28-29 is a repetition of a law spelled out in Exodus 22:15, which states “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”[13] Here, the penalty for sleeping with an unbethrothed virgin is that the man must marry the woman which is why the man must pay the mohar or “bride-price” to the bride’s father. A mohar was security money (50 shekels) that the groom paid to the bride’s father. It was held in trust for the woman in case the man later abandoned her or divorced her without just cause.[14] Such money protected women from the poverty that could occur if they were abandoned with children. What is important, however, is that we are left in no doubt that in Exodus 22:15 the case deals, not with rape, but with what was traditionally called seduction.
The third reason is that, to interpret the law in Deut 21:28-29 as a rape is to make God the commander of a morally heinous command. Martin is correct, given what we know about the psychological harm that rape inflicts upon its victims to command that a woman marry her rapist is cruel and hence clashes with strong moral intuitions. Elsewhere I have defended the claim that if one interpretation of divine commands coheres better with our moral intuitions than another then that fact constitutes evidence for the former interpretation. All else being equal, an interpretation that coheres with our pre-theoretical moral intuitions is always preferable. This hermeneutical principle applies here.
The passage then does not refer to a rape. The Hebrew word does not, by itself, indicate rape and interpreting it this way both ignores the context where the word chazak is used to designate a rape. It also makes the second law inconsistent with the exposition of the same law in Exodus 22:15 and also with our prior moral discernment about what is right and wrong. Seduction, however, is consistent with the meaning of tabas, the context it is used in, the original law it was derived from and it coheres with our moral intuitions. These factors, to me, provide decisive reasons for rejecting Martin’s interpretation.
It is worth noting that the fact that this passage refers to a seduction and not rape is really not news. Bahnsen notes that, “one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape;”[15] he lists several,
He goes on to quote a number of authorities and makes some more comments.
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted December 19, 2009 04:27 AM |
|
|
um...
on the entropy thing... last time i checked, entropy universe-wise was increasing. take a step back however and see the two views (of the many, only those two seem to be represented in this discussion, i believe)
view A: matter and energy always existed in one form or another (yes, it's oversimplified, but that is the main idea) changing from one form to the other in a sort of endless loop
view B: matter and energy were created by a being that always existed (even though nothing else did) and is the source of everything in the universe (some would say said being was bored being all alone, perfectly understandable)
do you see that both views claim that something simply always was? the second view however, incorporates something that we have no scientific proof about and has only been mentioned in a book that was written 2000 years ago (back when people thought lightning was a god farting) or books quoting said book (or people believing that book)
why complicate things further than necessary? you are basically creating your own philosophical Rude Goldberg machine
it's like watching a ball fall to the ground... i say: "it was somewhere high and fell" you say: "a troll was playing baseball against a dinosaur using that ball but sent it in orbit after a powerful swing and the ball just returned to us after thousands of years" ...the fact you offer some explanation (whereas i didn't) doesn't make up for the fact it's a ridiculous one
regarding the rape quotes: maybe you are right (and i am still not convinced) but just as your quotes are in the bible, so was mine (and i didn't see you address that one specifically. if i missed it, do point it out) and that alone leads to a number of conclusions:
1. the bible is inconsistent, the morals within change according to the passage (and for a book with "Thou shalt not kill" in it... its pretty damn gory and slasher-ific, you have to admit)
2. the passage i mentioned was not god's law, but a tribal law of ancient israelites (jews? hebrew? what's the proper term anyway) that somehow made it in the bible... but wait a minute, if THAT got in there what else did? ...how can you trust any of it is actually as intended
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 07:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
regarding the rape quotes: maybe you are right (and i am still not convinced) but just as your quotes are in the bible, so was mine (and i didn't see you address that one specifically. if i missed it, do point it out) and that alone leads to a number of conclusions:
1. the bible is inconsistent, the morals within change according to the passage (and for a book with "Thou shalt not kill" in it... its pretty damn gory and slasher-ific, you have to admit)
2. the passage i mentioned was not god's law, but a tribal law of ancient israelites (jews? hebrew? what's the proper term anyway) that somehow made it in the bible... but wait a minute, if THAT got in there what else did? ...how can you trust any of it is actually as intended
Oh, what scripture did I not addressed? You quoted the Deuteronomy passage in chapter 22. I addressed the relevant Hebrew words as well as the context of the verses.
You claim the passage was jsut a tribal law. So? You have no proof of your cliams. You are making astatment of faith. You seem to be quite the religious atheist, making your own dogma and declaring it cannon. I would be ludicrous to say that a few verses just got stuck in there. There is no manuscript evidence for your claim.
You could use the term Hebrew or Jew. Either is appropriate. At that time of Deuteronomy they would have been know as Hebrews. Later in history they became known as Jews, named after the tribe of Judah. The bulk of those who returned to the land of Israel after a period of captivity were from that tribe.
The Bible passages are quite consistant in their moral teachings. You have certainly porduced no inconsistant teachings so far.
Quote:
regarding the rape quotes: maybe you are right (and i am still not convinced) but just as your quotes are in the bible, so was mine (and i didn't see you address that one specifically. if i missed it, do point it out) and that alone leads to a number of conclusions:
Actually, I dealt with all the verses you mentioned, though I dealt with 2 of those on a previous page. The two I did not mention again were so obviously not rape that I did not deal them again, but I will do so now.
Oh, what I find interestin is that you switched translations for verses in the same passage that were almost adjacent. For verses 23-24 you used NAB. For verses 28-29 you used NLT.
Oh, lets, see, you quoted 22:28-29. I dealt with that in my last post and proved it was consensual sex, not rape.
The other verses you quoted (23-24) I had dealt with a post or two previously. It is actually in the same chapter, as I mentioned above, separated by only a few verses. It is interesting tha you chose to switch translations for adjacent verses.
So lets look at those verses one more time.
Adultury carried death penalty. Adultury is consensual sex when one or both are married to someone else.
(ASV)
Quote:
Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Do you see anything about the woman crying out or the man forcing himself on her? Nope. In the verses next that deal with rape it mentions both the man forcing himself on her and the woman crying out. I dealt rather extensively with that.
The above passage is a man and a woman who is betrothed (betrothal as the first stage of marriage, and the woman was considered to be married at that point) having consensual sex.
They were both stoned because it was consensual sex.
Now, you did not say what your problem was with the verses. I assumed on those 2 verses you though a rapist and his victim were stoned since you had been talking about rape.
Now, if you are just upset because adultury carried the death penalth, so what? Marriage is a covenant and breaking a covenant was considered a very serious thing. And as I mentioned previously, all Israelites took a vow to obey God, and repeated the penalty for breaking the law, as I stated previously. If you know the punishment for a law and chose to break it you have only yourself to blame.
I hope that clears that up. I have addressed every verse you have come up with from the anti-Chrisian site and proven God did not requrie rape victims to marry the rapist. Rape carried the death penalty.
Claims that God required a rape victim to marry the rapist are just so ludicrous that any sane person should know that that was not the case. Hopefully you will be honest enough to acknowledge that the Bible does not teach such a thing.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
view A: matter and energy always existed in one form or another (yes, it's oversimplified, but that is the main idea) changing from one form to the other in a sort of endless loop
matter may have always existed, but it shows no sign of an endless loop (for all we know time was created at the Big Bang though, so 'always' is a bit of a vague term to use... yes that's even in view B btw with 'God' "always" existing).
Saying it's an endless loop is ok as long as you admit you're completely ignoring the observations that the Universe is expanding acceleratingly.  (not saying that view B has any observations, of course, but that was the point, to say that the 'endless loop' part is similar to a belief in a deity)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 19:22, 19 Dec 2009.
|
Elodin... you're going to have to accept that humanity is evil.
here me out on this...
ALL humanity is evil, christians, muslims, jews, atheists, hindu's buddhists, black people, white people, rich, poor, men, women, we are ALL evil!!!
there is no solely good group of people, why? because we would have killed them. there is evil in all humanity, there is evil, and darkness, depravity and sin, hatred and copper bottoms C**ttitude!
And that's what makes us interesting!!! Darkness makes the world and interesting place! if it was all good... it would be boring! that's why I would prefer to go to hell over heaven. yeah, i'll get tortured, but it's far more interesting that simply floating about of a fluffy cloud!
that is why I can't stand you saying "OH christians, by definition according to passaged blah from a book which is a translation of a translation of a translation of some stories which says this, don't hate and murder!"... WHAT?! that's like saying in, say, 2000 years, people justify killing snakes because they read in harry potter that they are evil. it's bogus!
more importantly, definitions don't come from within the group themselves. If Geeks could do that, then we would have made the definition "Intellectual badasses" by now. If Goths could do it, it would be "Nihilistic masters of night and metal!" NO!!!! the group get defined by people outside the group!!! if you decide that that's not the case, and you are going to define christians as "those who don't hate or murder", then allow the atheists to be defined "the only group of people who have any sense in the world." or the muslims as "those who have the most direct root to Allah!". or Satanists as "those who reject god because he's a cranky old nonce!"
and i'm sorry, god is a nonce! Mary, when she was impregnated, supposedly, by god, she was...wait for it...fourteen! FOURTEEN! that's two years under the brit legal age of concent, never mind the american one. seriously, I would want a guy who banged up a girl aged fourteen to be locked up for pedophilia! and Mary didn't consent, either, so god, under law, raped her!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 07:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and i'm sorry, god is a nonce! Mary, when she was impregnated, supposedly, by god, she was...wait for it...fourteen! FOURTEEN! that's two years under the brit legal age of concent, never mind the american one. seriously, I would want a guy who banged up a girl aged fourteen to be locked up for pedophilia! and Mary didn't consent, either, so god, under law, raped her!
lol
Rape is sexual assault not "artificial" insemination, the latter is a different matter. (although you may disagree with it as well)
You aren't seriously using man-made laws as an argument right? Especially considering that today's laws aren't really any more special than other laws in the past you may despise (in the sense that they are both made by man).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
and i'm sorry, god is a nonce! Mary, when she was impregnated, supposedly, by god, she was...wait for it...fourteen! FOURTEEN! that's two years under the brit legal age of concent, never mind the american one. seriously, I would want a guy who banged up a girl aged fourteen to be locked up for pedophilia! and Mary didn't consent, either, so god, under law, raped her!
*cough* stop doing random ranting *cough*
14 was a perfectly normal social accepted age, back then. People where antic if they reached an age of 30 back then! People died at a age of 21! I guess she would be pregnant at a age 13 by normal means under other circumstances, so what is the difference?
But i think this is a good example of no absolute morals.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 08:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
on the entropy thing... last time i checked, entropy universe-wise was increasing. take a step back however and see the two views (of the many, only those two seem to be represented in this discussion, i believe)
Yes, entropy is increasing. That means there is less and less usable energy in the universe. The univese is going to heat death. The universe is not eternal.
Also, obversations point to the fact that the univesrse had a beginning. In the past, atheists claimed the universwe is eternal. But now, that is no longer a defendable postion. Atheism as a rational belief system is dead.
Quote:
view A: matter and energy always existed in one form or another (yes, it's oversimplified, but that is the main idea) changing from one form to the other in a sort of endless loop
In view of entropy it is impossible that matter and energy are eternal.
It is also impossible that matter and energy created itself. It is also impossible that absolute nothing created matter and energy.
Quote:
view B: matter and energy were created by a being that always existed (even though nothing else did) and is the source of everything in the universe (some would say said being was bored being all alone, perfectly understandable)
The uncaused cause of the universe being God is the only rational explaination. But certainly I would disagree with a view of God that says he is "needy."
Quote:
do you see that both views claim that something simply always was? the second view however, incorporates something that we have no scientific proof about and has only been mentioned in a book that was written 2000 years ago (back when people thought lightning was a god farting) or books quoting said book (or people believing that book)
The theistic view that God created the univese is compatable with known science and so is a rational position to hold.
The atheistic viow is incompatalbe with known science and so is an irrational view to hold.
We know the universe had a beginning and that it could not create itself. The first cause had to be a self-existant cause that had no beginning. God.
Atheists, of course, are free to cling to their atheist dogma in spite of the evidence. I don't begrudge anyone thier religion.
Oh, no Jew or Christian ever though lightning was God farting. That was supoersticious pagans.
@ Bixie
Quote:
Elodin... you're going to have to accept that humanity is evil.
Sorry, it is quite simply untrue to say all humans are evil.
Quote:
Darkness makes the world and interesting place!
Sorry, when I read about a child being kidnapped, imprisoned, and raped for 30 years I don't think, "Oh, my, how interesting."
Quote:
that is why I can't stand you saying "OH christians, by definition according to passaged blah from a book which is a translation of a translation of a translation of some stories which says this, don't hate and murder!"... WHAT?! that's like saying in, say, 2000 years, people justify killing snakes because they read in harry potter that they are evil. it's bogus!
Frankly, it is a bit moronic to say that an atheist can set what the requirements for being a Christian are. Or that a Satanist can set the requirements for being a Jew.
The inspired Chrsitian New Testament give the requirements for being a Chrsitian. It is sad that some atheists are unable to comprehend that.
Oh, it is false to say that the Bible is translations of translations of trransaltions. I have dealt with that many times in the past. The hisorical manuscripts are mainly in Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament.) When the New Testament is translated into English it is translated directily into English. It is not translate from Greek---> French--->German--->Chinese-->English.
Quote:
and i'm sorry, god is a nonce!
You are free to hold irrational views.
Quote:
Mary, when she was impregnated, supposedly, by god, she was...wait for it...fourteen!
The Bible does not say how old she was, and God did not have sex with her. The power of the Spirit overshadowed her and she conceived.
I find it rather interesting and enlightening that anti-theists make so many fale claims and yet claim to be inteested in "only the facts."
Quote:
Mary didn't consent, either, so god, under law, raped her!
More false claims. There was not sex involved and Mary did consent to the plan of God. In fact, she rejoiced. It is truly sad that some people resort to blatant lies to attack Christianity with. It seems to indicate that they know the weakness of their own worldview.
Quote:
Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luk 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Quote:
Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed./quote]
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 09:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
atheists claimed
THERE IS NO TRUE SCOTSMAN! Specially in that group. If you say "I do NOT belive in God", you are a atheists. It is that simple. Now stop the idiocy.
Quote:
The theistic view that God created the univese is compatable with known science and so is a rational position to hold.
The atheistic viow is incompatalbe with known science and so is an irrational view to hold.
WHY?! Do you have any evidence of this? There is notihng supporting the existience of God, yet there is no evidence supporting that there is no God.
So why is the atheist view irrationale? There is no evidence of either, which means you are claiming something out of thin air. Much like companies spread F.U.D.(Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), you are doing the exact same thing with noteable differences.
Quote:
We know the universe had a beginning and that it could not create itself. The first cause had to be a self-existant cause that had no beginning. God.
EVIDENCE PLEASE!
Quote:
Atheists, of course, are free to cling to their atheist dogma in spite of the evidence. I don't begrudge anyone thier religionnon-religion.
Quote:
Oh, no Jew or Christian ever though
Going by chance calculation theory, you got no chance whatsoever of being correct with this.
Quote:
Oh, it is false to say that the Bible is translations of translations of trransaltions. I have dealt with that many times in the past. The hisorical manuscripts are mainly in Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament.) When the New Testament is translated into English it is translated directily into English. It is not translate from Greek---> French--->German--->Chinese-->English.
I beg your pardon, that is pure bullsnow. It may be just 2 or more translations in the row but it goes like this:
Orginal ---> Latin ---> *whatever language*/English ---> New translation
Claiming something else is either FUD or bullsnow. There are a few times when people botherd to break this chain by translating from the bottom again, but every single one of these translations got different wordings and phrases which again means different things.
Lets face it, unless you read the bible in its original langues then your reading something that is altered to some degree.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 09:28 PM |
|
|
Dude calm down, and no there's no evidence for God, but there's evidence that the Universe was not eternal, which was the main point. Of course Elodin draws the God conclusion from it, but that wasn't exactly the point. But the point was that the people's beliefs who claimed the Universe was eternal were shattered when Hubble made the Big Bang discovery.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 09:59 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 22:05, 19 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
atheists claimed
THERE IS NO TRUE SCOTSMAN! Specially in that group. If you say "I do NOT belive in God", you are a atheists. It is that simple. Now stop the idiocy.
What I said, in context, was:
Quote:
Yes, entropy is increasing. That means there is less and less usable energy in the universe. The univese is going to heat death. The universe is not eternal.
Also, obversations point to the fact that the univesrse had a beginning. In the past, atheists claimed the universwe is eternal. But now, that is no longer a defendable postion. Atheism as a rational belief system is dead.
What is dishonest is to take only two words from my sentence. What is idiotic is to say that atheists did not make that claim. They held it, and it has been soundly debunked. The claim of an eternal universe now goes against known science an is therefore irrational.
Quote:
WHY?! Do you have any evidence of this? There is notihng supporting the existience of God, yet there is no evidence supporting that there is no God.
So why is the atheist view irrationale? There is no evidence of either, which means you are claiming something out of thin air. Much like companies spread F.U.D.(Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), you are doing the exact same thing with noteable differences.
Did you even read my previous posts? The laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe is not eternal and could not create itself and that it could not come out of absolute nothing with no cause.
The first cause, the uncased cause, had to be self existant. Eternal. God.
The materialialist atheist view is irrational becasue it has to either hold that: 1) the universe is eternal; or 2) the universe came from absolute nothing with no cause. Both positions are irratinoal based on what we now know about science.
Quote:
We know the universe had a beginning and that it could not create itself. The first cause had to be a self-existant cause that had no beginning. God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE PLEASE!
As noted previously, the laws of thermodynamics and such observatinos as those done with the Hubble telescope. Materialistic atheism is dead as a rational philosophy.
Quote:
Atheists, of course, are free to cling to their atheist dogma in spite of the evidence. I don't begrudge anyone thier religionnon-religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, no Jew or Christian ever though
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going by chance calculation theory, you got no chance whatsoever of being correct with this.
Huh? The US Supreme Court ruled atheism to be a religion. Atheists hold views that are unproven. That is faith. And many atheists theses days are very evangelical and fervent in trying to spread their "gospel."
Oh, as for you last quotation, if anyone claims Jews or Christians ever taught that lighting is God farting, they are a liar.
What is up with you clipping my statements? This is the second time in your post that you've done that.
Quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, it is false to say that the Bible is translations of translations of trransaltions. I have dealt with that many times in the past. The hisorical manuscripts are mainly in Hebrew (Old Testament) or Greek (New Testament.) When the New Testament is translated into English it is translated directily into English. It is not translate from Greek---> French--->German--->Chinese-->English.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I beg your pardon, that is pure bullsnow. It may be just 2 or more translations in the row but it goes like this:
Orginal ---> Latin ---> *whatever language*/English ---> New translation
I'm sorry, but you seem to be clueless about Bible translation. Translations are done from the original language into the desired language. Greek (in the case of the New Teatament) to English for example.
Clicky
Quote:
This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.
The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language in which a person needs to read. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language into which we translate the Bible. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The materialialist atheist view is irrational becasue it has to either hold that: 1) the universe is eternal; or 2) the universe came from absolute nothing with no cause. Both positions are irratinoal based on what we now know about science.
3) Based on what science has so far observed, the origins of the universe are for the most part unknown, but we believe that there is a natural cause for everything.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 10:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is dishonest is to take only two words from my sentence. What is idiotic is to say that atheists did not make that claim. They held it, and it has been soundly debunked. The claim of an eternal universe now goes against known science an is therefore irrational.
Oh really? I say it again: There is no true scotsman of atheists.
Quote:
Did you even read my previous posts? The laws of thermodynamics prove that the universe is not eternal and could not create itself and that it could not come out of absolute nothing with no cause.
The first cause, the uncased cause, had to be self existant. Eternal. God.
Quote:
The materialialist atheist view is irrational becasue it has to either hold that: 1) the universe is eternal; or 2) the universe came from absolute nothing with no cause. Both positions are irratinoal based on what we now know about science.
BULLsnow! You still claim that atheists hold this view. If you are an atheist you are just say "There is no God or Gods", which are not related to your hate propaganda(what else can I interpret it as?).
Quote:
We know the universe had a beginning and that it could not create itself. The first cause had to be a self-existant cause that had no beginning. God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EVIDENCE PLEASE!
As noted previously, the laws of thermodynamics and such observatinos as those done with the Hubble telescope. Materialistic atheism is dead as a rational philosophy.
That is not evidence, that is claiming. Claiming is NOT good unless its clearly stated. So please stop your bullsnow or reword your phrases so they at the least don't repesent 100% pure bullsnow.
Quote:
Huh? The US Supreme Court ruled atheism to be a religion. Atheists hold views that are unproven. That is faith. And many atheists theses days are very evangelical and fervent in trying to spread their "gospel."
I read that too, the reason was that a anti-theist wanted a study group in a prison somewhere. The result was a court case, and he was allowed to make this group. To make such a study group, you need to "have a faith". So the court ruled nothing more than the lack of faith, or better phrased: "The belief there is no god/gods" is a valid faith.
So its a "faith", but not a "religion". There is groups, but there is no "atheist religion" in comparision to "a christian religion".
NEXT!
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
3) Based on what science has so far observed, the origins of the universe are for the most part unknown, but we believe that there is a natural cause for everything.
A bit curious on this one. Does "a natural cause" include aliens? What about a virtual simulation (i.e we're in the Matrix)?
Quote:
Oh really? I say it again: There is no true scotsman of atheists.
del_diablo, take a deep breath and look at what you said again. Saying "atheists did X" doesn't mean that 'a true atheist says it' or that the notion of atheism implies that.
You can say, for example, that religious people did the crusades. I don't see a problem with that either -- only your imagination that extrapolates that to the 'no true scotsman' viewpoint. It's not like this phrase says that the religious people implies such a thing, or that all religious people are crusaders. It's a true phrase nonetheless.
Quote:
That is not evidence, that is claiming. Claiming is NOT good unless its clearly stated.
No, claiming is never good if it's not backed up by something (even an opinion -- but in this case opinions aren't really worthwhile).
However I don't see how saying that we have observations of the Big Bang is a claim since it includes observations which is the exact thing that people ask for... or are you referring to the conclusion that Elodin says it was God who caused the Big Bang? Which yes, it is just his opinion.
(because obviously, it could be anything extra-dimensional, not God per se, or an extra-dimensional law of physics or something to that effect)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 11:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A bit curious on this one. Does "a natural cause" include aliens? What about a virtual simulation (i.e we're in the Matrix)?
Sure.
Was that raising a point that saying: "a natural cause," is not taking into account the possibility of the world being arificial?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 11:24 PM |
|
|
For the alien question, I was asking whether a sentient event (which, you know, people never ever assume) was taken into account or not (i.e a "natural process" is that which has no sentience involved). 
But for the simulation, how is the Matrix different from God in "naturalness"?
Couldn't you say, Heaven is the "real world" and this world is just a simulation?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted December 19, 2009 11:54 PM |
|
|
I see your point.
So in the end, with the 3rd view I represented to contrast with the two by Elodin, there is no real reason to deny the possibility of a god or the likes.
Did I miss the point or was there more?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Oh really? I say it again: There is no true scotsman of atheists.
del_diablo, take a deep breath and look at what you said again. Saying "atheists did X" doesn't mean that 'a true atheist says it' or that the notion of atheism implies that.
Take a look at what i quote. Please. For once? Your babbeling halfway nonsense.
Quote:
Quote:
That is not evidence, that is claiming. Claiming is NOT good unless its clearly stated.
No, claiming is never good if it's not backed up by something (even an opinion -- but in this case opinions aren't really worthwhile).
The problem is not the claim, but what the claim is used for. You claim something, then you use the claim as hard evidence in case B. That is what i am attempting to lampshade.
He claims atheists belive something, points at the wrong group, claim it applies to everyone of them, them uses another claim towards the theory of the universe which again puts there.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Take a look at what i quote. Please. For once? Your babbeling halfway nonsense.
You mean this?
What is dishonest is to take only two words from my sentence. What is idiotic is to say that atheists did not make that claim. They [atheists] held it, and it has been soundly debunked. The claim of an eternal universe now goes against known science an is therefore irrational.
(emphasis mine)
Where does it say or even imply "a true atheist says the Universe is eternal"?
Quote:
The problem is not the claim, but what the claim is used for. You claim something, then you use the claim as hard evidence in case B. That is what i am attempting to lampshade.
claims are evidence? lolwut?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
