Anyway, the fun continues with Fortuna at ERV. Here's the latest (and sorry about the jacked-up font. Blogger's latest "improvements" have come with lots of div tags, and I don't feel like cleaning them up all the time).
Fortuna,
You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
Where?
I rejoice at the thought you may one day live up to your own standards.
1) Well, in this point you've seen me ask for evidence over and over, and my opponents refuse to supply it. Your day has come.
2) Besides, it's not as if you don't make massive assumptions as well. You can't PROVE naturalism or the value of evidence, or the reliability of your cognitive faculties. You take that all on faith, so don't point fingers when it comes to assumptions.
2) Besides, it's not as if you don't make massive assumptions as well. You can't PROVE naturalism or the value of evidence, or the reliability of your cognitive faculties. You take that all on faith, so don't point fingers when it comes to assumptions.
Be it resolved that forced marriage is moral, according to you.
1) Now you're retreating to an argument from personal outrage. Why should anyone care?
2) Why is this a surprise? ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good. I've asked you to respond to that by demanding an objective standard of good and evil on your worldview. You never provide it. So... you're stuck.
2) Why is this a surprise? ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good. I've asked you to respond to that by demanding an objective standard of good and evil on your worldview. You never provide it. So... you're stuck.
"I can see why you wouldn't want to imagine yourself in the circumstances of an ancient female war-captive".
Quite, b/c I like my life now. For the 4th time, so what?
Your question was to provide a standard, and I have
Fine, then. Since, on Christianity, ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good, I guess we don't have a problem. Your internal critique isn't going to go far, sorry. (But kudos for at least knowing what that is. Virtually no other commenter around here does.)
Was it moral at one time, but no longer?
Not too many people are in that situation these days, wherein the actual nation's laws are the Mosaic Law, but I don't necessarily see why not, IF the war were just. But it's hard to have a just war, to be sure.
fathers may sell their daughters into slavery
It's clumsy to say "slavery" when you know the imagery that the word conjures in today's discourse. More like indentured servitude, with a limited time scope.
Husbands may also stone their wives to death if they can't provide proof of their virginity upon being married.
Yes. For the 10th time, provide an objective standard by which we can judge whether that's right or wrong.
treating women as chattel
Premise rejected, thus question rejected too. Try proving that women were "chattel" first.
Don't assume it, prove it
Read marriage vows? Ever been married? Besides, if we're talking internal critique, read 1 Cor 7.
So the marriage portion of the prescribed punishment is optional?
You haven't shown it's obligatory. So go ahead and prove your own positive assertion.
The real question is since you think rape is bad, how do you square that with the instances in which the Bible condones it?
Just give us one and we can talk.
I said that a perfect God condemning the results of his own plan makes no sense.
Since you didn't read about the 2 Wills of God, I have no idea why you feel qualified to speak so confidently and yet so ignorantly. You seem to be exhibiting a bit of a martyr complex just b/c I asked you to read an article. Silly me for proposing that you might want to learn about a position before critiquing it.
Rhology;
Where?
Your memory can't seriously be that short, but OK.
One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
To show that YOU DON'T KNOW.
Right there.
1) Well, in this point you've seen me ask for evidence over and over, and my opponents refuse to supply it. Your day has come. 2) Besides, it's not as if you don't make massive assumptions as well. You can't PROVE naturalism or the value of evidence, or the reliability of your cognitive faculties. You take that all on faith, so don't point fingers when it comes to assumptions.
If you castigate people up and down for making reasonable assumptions, you lose the right to try to rebut them with ludicrous ones. Your entire response here is just a non-sequitur.
1) Now you're retreating to an argument from personal outrage. Why should anyone care?
2) Why is this a surprise? ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good. I've asked you to respond to that by demanding an objective standard of good and evil on your worldview. You never provide it. So... you're stuck.
It's an internal critique, rather than an argument from anything. If you scroll upthread, you'll notice I said that modern Christianity seems, from the perspective of an outsider, to take a dim view of forced matrimony. That means that the ethics of forced marriage, according to you at least, are situational, which takes some wrangling to square with the notion of objective morals.
Quite, b/c I like my life now. For the 4th time, so what?
It was fun times watching you try to wriggle out of the manifest unpleasantness of it all. If you're not actually bothered by your dear and fluffy Lord grinding his beloved children into the dirt, then don't be.
Fine, then. Since, on Christianity, ANYTHING that the God of the Bible commands or condones is by definition morally good, I guess we don't have a problem. Your internal critique isn't going to go far, sorry. (But kudos for at least knowing what that is. Virtually no other commenter around here does.)
Well, that depends on how cool you are with being impaled on Euthyphro's horns. Either the nature from which those commands ultimately derive is itself arbitrary, or its goodness has to be defined in terms that do not simply refer back to it being God's nature. Otherwise you're left in a hopelessly self-referential mess.
It's clumsy to say "slavery" when you know the imagery that the word conjures in today's discourse. More like indentured servitude, with a limited time scope.
The passage quoted at Ken Pulliam's site linked above only provides for a limited time scope of slavery (or servitude for the delicate) in the event that her master decides to dispense with her in one of several prescribed ways.
Yes. For the 10th time, provide an objective standard by which we can judge whether that's right or wrong.
I don't know how many times I've responded to a similar effect now, but according to some Christians, murder is objectively wrong, forever and always.
Premise rejected, thus question rejected too. Try proving that women were "chattel" first.
Selling people makes them chattel. Giving someone else the discretion to take their life for the crime of having used their own body as they see fit makes them chattel.
Read marriage vows? Ever been married?
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
Besides, if we're talking internal critique, read 1 Cor 7.
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
You haven't shown it's obligatory. So go ahead and prove your own positive assertion.
The passage quoted phrases it as what shall be done in the event of rape. If you can provide something that plausibly demonstrates that these were meant to be taken as optional guidelines, I'll concede the day on this point.
Just give us one and we can talk.
Ken has that covered, and I know that you know that. Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
Since you didn't read about the 2 Wills of God, I have no idea why you feel qualified to speak so confidently and yet so ignorantly. You seem to be exhibiting a bit of a martyr complex just b/c I asked you to read an article. Silly me for proposing that you might want to learn about a position before critiquing it.
I straight up told you I didn't feel like reading about your favorite form of fan fiction; I didn't want to make a bigger thing out of it than I already have, but since you continue to remark on it, I will explain that I loathe reading theology for its own sake. I do hope you're not under the impression that I am in any way embarrassed to be reminded of my own straightforward conduct.
How about I just thank you for the link and promise to read it if and when I am curious. For the mean time, if you have no intention of giving me an explanation in your own words, just say so. Like I say, it's entirely your prerogative what you explain or don't, no harm no foul. Though you may want to explain the Ray Comfort reference; seriously, that guy is a tool.
Fortuna,
F: You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
R: Where?
F: One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
R: To show that YOU DON'T KNOW.
F: You've already admitted you implied it, which was my point. Looking to the log in one's own eye, and such.
R: Where?
F: One wonders why you attempted to imply that they all consented to marriage, then.
R: To show that YOU DON'T KNOW.
Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like I was saying that you don't know. If you saw therein an implication that *I* know, I'm not sure that's my fault. Maybe, just maybe, I meant "you don't know" and that's all.
If you castigate people up and down for making reasonable assumptions
Ah, an ipse dixit from you, that it's reasonable. OK, gotcha.
Apparently demanding evidence is only acceptable when it's in service of Mother Atheism. If someone asks for evidence in a way that might reflect poorly on an assertion coming from an atheist, you're suddenly not all that concerned with substantiation.
Apparently demanding evidence is only acceptable when it's in service of Mother Atheism. If someone asks for evidence in a way that might reflect poorly on an assertion coming from an atheist, you're suddenly not all that concerned with substantiation.
Your entire response here is just a non-sequitur.
Apparently you don't know what "non sequitur" means, which is a shame.
modern Christianity seems, from the perspective of an outsider, to take a dim view of forced matrimony.
That might be the problem, then. I have zero interest in defending "modern Christianity" in most cases. One would have to be very specific, and I'd take it on a case-by-case basis. What I *do* defend is biblical Christianity and the Bible. Unfortunately, much as I wish they were synonymous, they're not.
That means that the ethics of forced marriage, according to you at least, are situational, which takes some wrangling to square with the notion of objective morals.
Yes, I see what you're saying. I'd agree that the Deut 21 psg does refer to a more or less forced marriage (which, again, does not equate with rape w/o an argument to that effect). The difference is that God commands certain things for certain contexts and other things in others. Whatever those commands are, they are objective and objectively applicable to the persons to whom the commands are directed, but not every command is necessarily applicable to everyone at all times. We can be sure if the commands applies to us, to obey it is objectively good and to disobey it is objectively wrong, but of course not every communication from God applies to everyone, and not all apply equally.
A few examples of across-the-board application: Don't kill anyone w/o justification (ie, murder). Don't rape.
An example of specific application: OT Israelites are not to wear mixed fabrics. (Here's the why and how we know the difference.)
A few examples of across-the-board application: Don't kill anyone w/o justification (ie, murder). Don't rape.
An example of specific application: OT Israelites are not to wear mixed fabrics. (Here's the why and how we know the difference.)
Well, that depends on how cool you are with being impaled on Euthyphro's horns.
Euthyphro is a paper tiger. I take one "horn" - things are good b/c God commands them. Yes, God's commands are arbitrary, but He's the Creator and the omnipotent and all-good one, the very standard of goodness and righteousness. He makes the rules, and tbh I'm only too happy to let Him do so.
Otherwise you're left in a hopelessly self-referential mess.
Like you are. But fortunately, I'm in a theoreferential situation.
The passage quoted at Ken Pulliam's site linked above only provides for a limited time scope of slavery (or servitude for the delicate) in the event that her master decides to dispense with her in one of several prescribed ways.
1) Yes, precisely. So what's the problem?
2) Pulliam, BTW, has proven himself incapable of discussing these things with any deep degree of understanding. Y'all both are apparently ignorant of the laws of Sabbath restoration and of Jubilee.
2) Pulliam, BTW, has proven himself incapable of discussing these things with any deep degree of understanding. Y'all both are apparently ignorant of the laws of Sabbath restoration and of Jubilee.
according to some Christians, murder is objectively wrong, forever and always.
Correct, murder is always wrong.
1) Now prove that you know the definition of murder (hint: I provided one in this very comment), and how this can't apply to God.
2) You apparently know the meaning of the TERM "internal critique", but you're having difficulty applying it to me. Let me help - I'm a conservative, inerrantist, Calvinist Reformed Baptist. I'm not a liberal or a mainliner - your critiques of "modern Christianity" mean nothing to me. I agree that most of modern Xtianity is biblically ignorant and neglectful. So you need to deal with MY position, or go over to the Mainstream Baptist blog and try your wares there. Not that Prescott will let you comment more than once if you disagree with him...
1) Now prove that you know the definition of murder (hint: I provided one in this very comment), and how this can't apply to God.
2) You apparently know the meaning of the TERM "internal critique", but you're having difficulty applying it to me. Let me help - I'm a conservative, inerrantist, Calvinist Reformed Baptist. I'm not a liberal or a mainliner - your critiques of "modern Christianity" mean nothing to me. I agree that most of modern Xtianity is biblically ignorant and neglectful. So you need to deal with MY position, or go over to the Mainstream Baptist blog and try your wares there. Not that Prescott will let you comment more than once if you disagree with him...
Selling people makes them chattel
OK, well, fair enough.
Will you recognise that the OT system of indentured servitude means that one can render himself chattel?
Will you recognise that the OT system of indentured servitude means that one can render himself chattel?
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
B/c, again, if you read the whole psg, you'll see that they, you know, get married to their captors.
Besides, if we're talking internal critique, read 1 Cor 7.
Relevance to the treatment of war-captives under Mosaic Law?
Not the war-captive part of their life. The married part, after they get married. And I refer to the part in 1 Cor 7 about the wife's body not belonging to herself and the husband's not to himself.
The passage quoted phrases it as what shall be done in the event of rape
Yep, and directed TO THE MAN.
I straight up told you I didn't feel like reading about your favorite form of fan fiction;
So you admit that you had no desire from the beginning to learn about the critique you were making. Why should anyone respect that, again?
Tell you what, lemme demonstrate. Evolution is false b/c bananas are perfectly designed and situated for human consumption. Booyah, I have now used the kind of argumentation (ie, ignorant) that you apparently favor to prove evolution is garbage. Boo. Yah.
Tell you what, lemme demonstrate. Evolution is false b/c bananas are perfectly designed and situated for human consumption. Booyah, I have now used the kind of argumentation (ie, ignorant) that you apparently favor to prove evolution is garbage. Boo. Yah.
How about I just thank you for the link and promise to read it if and when I am curious.
That's fine, when you concede that you do not have close to sufficient understanding to mount a meaningful internal critique on your original challenge about decree vs command.
since you continue to remark on it
Um, YOU brought it up, and YOU'RE whining about how I won't condense it to a few sentences. Me, I have every reason to doubt that atheist interlocutors have very much meaningful knowledge of Xtian theology; why would *I* bring it up or harp on it?
If you don't want to keep talking about it, say: "Fair enough, I threw that out there w/o any substantiation. I retract."
If you don't want to keep talking about it, say: "Fair enough, I threw that out there w/o any substantiation. I retract."
Though you may want to explain the Ray Comfort reference; seriously, that guy is a tool.
You know, you're a trifle tiring.
For now the, what, 15th time, please explain on what basis you make any pejorative towards anyone? What is the telos to which you appeal? I'd say that leaving the same question unanswered 15 times makes the not-answerer a bit of a tool, myself.
For now the, what, 15th time, please explain on what basis you make any pejorative towards anyone? What is the telos to which you appeal? I'd say that leaving the same question unanswered 15 times makes the not-answerer a bit of a tool, myself.
Peace,
Rhology
Rhology
2 comments:
Aw, you should have told me. I'd have jumped in.
Ooops, sorry. I'll try to remember to let you know next time I decide to ruffle feathers over at ERV. It'll be nice to be your wingman, since it's usually me against like 5-10 hostiles.
Post a Comment