“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31: 15-18
Most analytic varieties of atheism seem committed to experience, science, and reason as foundations of rational belief. Consider John Shook’s definition of Naturalism, as published on Naturalisms.org:
Naturalism is usually defined most briefly as the philosophical conclusion that the only reality is nature, as gradually discovered by our intelligence using the tools of experience, reason, and science.
As a Christian theist, I’m happily inclined to agree with experience, science, and reason (ESR) as foundations of rationality; ironically, were I an atheist, I might not so eagerly consent—continental philosophy beckons—but that’s another post. For present purposes, Quixote’s wondering why a perennial objection against Christian theism, a subset of the problem of evil which levies charges of wrongdoing against God Himself for ordering genocide, appears to be currently in the forefront of many atheists’s minds.
It’s all over the atheosphere in one form or another. Let’s take a brief look at the genocidal God objection (GGO) in the light of experience, science, and reason.
As far as I know, no one has direct experience of God committing genocide. I’ve never seen Him do it. I think it’s safe to assume no reader or commenter has either. If the objector is willing to grant the accounts of the Old Testament as historical, I say bravo. Let’s admit them as testimonial evidence. But once they’re admitted, let’s not de-admit them once we move on to other topics. At any rate, this does not represent direct experience and does not provide a rational foundation by means of direct experience for or against GGO under ESR.
Science appears to be of no assistance either. We do not appear to have an instrument or experiment capable of measuring the GGO, nor has science provided us with a time machine whereby we might directly observe this phenomenon.
What about reason? This must be the pillar of tripartite naturalistic thought the objection purportedly rests upon. But does it? Is this a logical objection?
I submit that it is not. This objection rests upon emotionalism. It’s an emotional plea, and as such, seems strange coming from the keyboards of atheists. Allow me to explain.
Christian doctrine clearly teaches that humankind in its entirety, save one notable exception, is deserving of death as a penalty for sin. Moreover, Christianity teaches that a holy and righteous God is justified in executing this judgment. From these two premises, and given Christian doctrine as true, logic requires deductively that God is not guilty of injustice, even to the extent of genocide, or in judgment in the form of a worldwide deluge:
P1 Sinners are deserving of judgment, including death.
P2 All humans are sinners.
P3 A righteous, morally blameless judge is justified in delivering judgment to sinners, including death.
P4 God is a righteous, morally blameless judge.
Therefore, God is justified in delivering judgment to sinners, including death.
It’s nearly tautological: If they deserve it, they deserve it. The logic appears impeccable, so given the truth of the premises, the conclusion necessarily follows. Here’s the point then: given the assumptions of Christian doctrine as revealed in the Bible, there’s no logical objection to God ordering genocide, and any rational observer is compelled by formal logic to acknowledge this conclusion, all emotionality aside. Considered purely from within the Christian worldview, the GGO fails logically, and is thus a purely emotional objection, one that does not square with experience, science, and reason.
I fully understand, however, that the Christian worldview is not the only game in town. Those of you who wish to argue that humans are not sinners who deserve death can do so, and create logical syllogisms that prove that the God of the Bible is a homicidal maniac. Fair enough, but that is not the objection I’m treating in this post. This post treats the objection that even from within the Christian’s own doctrine and holy book, God is a homicidal maniac. This is conclusively demonstrated above to be an emotional response, not a logical one, or at best a logical one founded on premises considered false by Christians. Hence, the notion that the Biblical accounts taken in isolation prove God morally culpable for genocide should be rejected by all atheists who wish to rely on experience, science, and reason to influence belief. We can argue later about whether Christianity is true, whether people are actually deserving of death and judgment, and so on, but let’s first settle the question of whether Christianity is internally consistent with regard to the GGO. I submit that it is.
I realize that even within my own argument above I need to address the issues of children, animals, and the means by which God delivers judgment to support the premises of this argument. I intend to do so in subsequent posts on this topic. Furthermore, it remains unexplicated above how God’s acts of ordering genocide are in actuality measures of grace and lovingness on his part—also reserved for a future post.
Now, let’s not shy away from the skeptic’s claim that Christianity is a bloody religion. Let’s not act as though their claim does not have merit. It does…it’s right there in our holy book. Christianity is a bloody religion that has as its cornerstone–its foundation–a bloody act performed by God through the actions of human agents: the crucifixion of Christ. Christian, this is the basis of your atonement: a blood sacrifice, given once and for all for your sin. If you can’t accept it, you can’t be a Christian.
Take a look around and ask yourself if this is a bloody world we live in. Clearly, it is, and non-bloody religions seem out of place in a bloody world, like a man trying to breathe water or a woman that only notices certain aspects of her face in a mirror. Only a bloody religion can make sense of a bloody world–that, or there’s no meaning to the world at all.
[…] As in, gentle Jesus, holding back the avenging hosts of heaven and the rightful destruction of the universe in all its wrecked vileness, for the sake of one small, helpless soul which is also wrecked and vile. Noah is proof that only one person wanting Him is enough. (See related post on God’s right to judge over at The Areopagus.) […]
Holy whacko batman. Oops was that emotional, I guess maybe I should just logically say your insane. You forgot that in that scripture you quote , God is not only saying its ok to kill, but he is pretty much saying its ok to rape the virgins. Because we both know logically that they wouldnt want to willing give themselves to the persons who just killed their families.
“If you can’t accept it, you can’t be a Christian.”
And this is why it is easy not to want to be associated with Nuts who think that this sheit is ok. Oops there I go again with my emotionalism.
Kudos! Great post, very well presented argument.
“I guess maybe I should just logically say your insane.”
I doubt you could do it logically since ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I’m glad you dropped by though…you’ve illustrated my contention in a very living and personal manner. Emotionalism over reason, science, and reason.
So you dont want to address the raping issue I see. Figured as much.
“So you dont want to address the raping issue I see. Figured as much.”
It’s already treated in the OP, you’re just not seeing it. Certainly, what you’re alleging is a less serious offense than genocide, correct? Yet its desert as judgment is no less warranted, given Christianity.
I’ll follow up with divine concurrence, evil, and related issues in subsequent posts, but for now, as stated in the OP, it remains demonstrated that Christianity and Scripture are logically and internally consistent with regard to this issue.
I stand by my first statement and I will leave it at that. See ya.
Whoa, easy there. I’m sorry you have the impression that God (and this blog author) don’t take rape seriously. This is a big issue for me too, as it remains so prevalent a crime today in spite of everything done for women’s rights in the last hundred years.
Let me weigh in as a woman, having dealt with many friends who’ve been hurt, and say my favourite–hands-down favourite–Old Testament Jewish laws are those regarding rape. A man must marry a woman he violates–protecting her from social stigma, impoverishment, potential single parenthood, and an inability to marry honourably, according to the culture of the time–and she is essentially given the right to rape him for the rest of his sorry life. (He cannot divorce her all his days, Deut. 22:29) Within the full context of ancient Jewish legalities, one begins to see how neatly God gives the upper hand to wronged women. It certainly caused me a contented chuckle when I studied it through.
Jewish men were not to simply use and discard female POWs, who have their own set of protections and rights. For example, even if he takes another “non-slave” wife, the man is not allowed to deny a slave wife her full financial or conjugal rights, Ex. 21:10.
Also, while the penalty for “fornication” is stoning in the OT, women have an extra clause automatically lifting the penalty if they’re out of earshot of help (“in the fields”), recognizing their physical vulnerability. In that case, rape is assumed, and the man is simply bludgeoned to death slowly and painfully with large stones by his entire community, and by the approval of his entire nation.
I could not worship a God who’s unjust or indifferent. There’s just too much wrong with the world. However, as the author points out, this is a post designed to look at logical consistencies in argumentation, not cultural practices, and is only part of the story even in its particular field of view.
I have to assume, titfortat, that you must be North American due to the apparent presumption that slavery is automatically oppression, whereas in many ancient cultures slavery (and marriage likewise) was security and safety from oppression, as it lent the stronger party’s cultural and economic power to the weaker party. These laws were structured in a way that would be recognized and respected by the barbaric surrounding cultures, while requiring actual human respect and consideration of those under Jewish law.
A careful study of the rare instances where God commanded the Israelites to deal with their neighbours by the sword reveals that they were eliminating some extremely horrible practices that caused even deeper injury to the young virgins, and the Israelis were then to provide their social power and the protection of their laws to the survivors.
All cultures deserve the respect of being interpreted in their own context, rather than us forcing ours on them in colonial fashion. So let’s also not accuse ancient Jewish men of automatically being rapists, just because other cultures in various times did pillage. That could be construed as anti-Semitic, and I don’t think that’s at all your intent. The Israelis of the time had very specific judicial limits on how they could treat women, slaves and foreigners. Their culture was intentionally and thoughtfully designed as one of compassion, pragmatic protection and generosity to foreigners in the midst of the very bloodthirsty world of which this post speaks.
Best to you,
Cat
Their culture was intentionally and thoughtfully designed as one of compassion, pragmatic protection and generosity to foreigners in the midst of the very bloodthirsty world of which this post speaks.(Cat)
You seem to be a bright young woman, its a shame you use your intellect to try to justify your faith(belief without actual proof). Culture context is irrelevant to a young girl who has just seen her family murdered and is now about to lose her virginity to her captors. Regardless of what they are required to do after the fact doesnt negate the horrendous things they have done and will do to her. Shame on you for thinking any God would be ok with that. I have a young daughter that I hope will use her brain for more useful things. Insanity is even more scary when the individuals look so sane.
A very high end written post, indeed. If we consider that the very problem with sin is the resultant disconnect from God that it implies and enacts, then all arguments flow from the point of God’s immediate grasp of both past and future and all things existent at the current moment being the measure for all definition of right and wrong. From God’s perspective, contrasting with the entirety of the universe, the current state of man is a huge “gray” area in the black and white of God’s omniscient perspective. And, that “gray” area is both temporary, and the only “lie” that exists in the hole cosmic entirety. I seriously doubt that if the planet Saturn had prescience that it would be as blinded as we are to the obvious existence of our own creator. But, fanciful analogies aside, we’re mighty lucky we have a God of love over this universe. If we had something like a “klingon” at the wheel, we’d have been eliminated long, long ago and the possibilities of these kind of mental jumping jacks would not even have come into being. That alone lends itself to a certain kind of evidence.
http://hubiegoode.blogspot.com
Well, Marc. It’s an ironic point that rape is (to use the vernacular of women’s advocacy, which is a strong element of my background) not about sex, but an act of violence which shames, degrades and invalidates another person. This mentality which is sometimes expressed in physical action can also be expressed in verbal violence, as is beautifully illustrated by your pseudo-advocate here. You know, if we want to talk the talk, we have to show we can walk the walk.
Now that I’m done chuckling at the irony and lack of credibility of someone trying to stand for women’s justice (or any justice) on the very footing of shaming, degradation and invalidation–the very mentality which allows people to rape and feel justified about it–with apologies for taking your thread so off-topic, I’ll just fill in a couple of things for other, genuinely interested folk who may likewise feel I’ve missed something. I believe your post is well worth reading past the initial quote, and I think it’s a poor place for a reader to get hung up.
“Culture [sic] context is irrelevant to a young girl who has just seen her family murdered and is now about to lose her virginity to her captors.”
At the risk of excessive tautology, this would be true if it were true; but if it isn’t, it’s not.
1) Ex. 6:14, 25; Num. 36:1; Josh. 22:21, 30 The structure of Israeli society was based around the family unit; the extended family unit; and finally the genetically-related ethnic group as a whole.
2) Rape was illegal. Adultery was illegal. Fornication was illegal. I think we covered that. As such, none of these would be the fate of female POWs coming into Israel.
3) Ex 21:9 Female slaves were required to be treated like a man’s own daughter in designating marriage contracts for them.
4) Female slaves could not be set aside or have their marital rights reduced in favour of a wife with a non-slave social designation.
5) In the specific passage Marc quotes, 32,000 women were brought into Israel. Here’s what was actually done:
“You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured.” (Num 31:26) There’s that family/father aspect, very important to understanding how these women are going to be dealt with.
16,000 women obtained permanent indenture to those who had fought actively in the battle. Another 16,000 were distributed among the noncombatant population of Israel. They may or may not have received a marriage contract; they may have been allowed to earn their freedom (Ex. 21:8). However, if a conjugal contract was on the table, they were to be dealt with as daughters.
To say that they were obviously raped is to say that an Israeli man’s normal response to a young relative who has just lost her family, rather than to give her a mourning period and support, would be to rape her. We have now ventured into the realm of absurdity and the type of slanderous antisemitic myth prevalent in the culture of Hitler.
A small percentage of these women were also given jobs among the Levites. Those familiar with the OT (and I must ask your forgiveness, Marc, for assuming your commenter had any knowledge on the topic simply due to willingness to jump in on it–that really was a leap of faith without any proof) will remember that one particular Gentile tribe managed to avoid extermination through trickery, and were subsequently granted the heritable job of being wood and water carriers for the service of the Temple.
Again, Marc, I apologize for the cultural rabbit-trail on a logic post. Hopefully the background information is helpful to legitimate dialoguers. If anyone with a sense of common courtesy would like to discuss the nature of faith, doubt and proof, I’m always happy to do so, provided the other party can demonstrate basic social skills.
“Again, Marc, I apologize for the cultural rabbit-trail on a logic post. ”
Well, Cat, I have to take exception with this portion of your comment. There’s a distinct undertow flowing beneath the analytic framework of the Genocidal God Objection in the OP: the utilization, or neglect of, experience, science, and reason. Far from denying experience, science, and reason, you’ve fulfilled all three—in a stunningly coherent and even swashbuckling manner. You’ve done any woman’s advocate proud, and I say that ready and willing to match my feminist library against yours any day.
Yes, the OP is a logic post…somewhat. What it also represents is a study on the willingness of Christians to engage and embrace their holy book, the apt characterization of Christianity as a bloody religion, and, of course, ESR. Now, admittedly, our sample size in response is minute; nevertheless, it’s representative of much internet atheism in my experience, with notable exceptions. By way of disclaimer, atheists who have interacted with me in the past should affirm that I enjoy dialoguing with atheists in a respectful manner, and even count some among my friends or good cyber-acquaintances.
Nonetheless, I’ve detected among many—not all—internet atheists, and our sample of one here confirms this observation, a tendency toward claiming ESR and rationality, yet never delivering upon it. It’s as though they attach themselves to “catch thoughts” and trot them around in lieu of actual thought. Notice the bald assertion, the unempirical contention, and constant ad hominem of our sample:
Oops was that emotional, I guess maybe I should just logically say your [sic] insane.
And this is why it is easy not to want to be associated with Nuts who think that this sheit is ok. Oops there I go again with my emotionalism.
So you dont want to address the raping issue I see. Figured as much. (Of course, I subsequently did and the non-ESR response follows): I stand by my first statement and I will leave it at that. See ya.
You seem to be a bright young woman, its a shame you use your intellect to try to justify your faith(belief without actual proof). [there’s your irony]
Culture context is irrelevant to a young girl who has just seen her family murdered and is now about to lose her virginity to her captors.
Shame on you for thinking any God would be ok with that. [I do not recall your being ok with that, Cat. Did you say or think that?]
Insanity is even more scary [aka scarier] when the individuals look so sane.
All of this from a fellow whose stated goals on his own blog are: “It has been a long process of re-training myself but I have slowly become better at another view of the world. One that is more loving, more supportive and friendly. I still hope to one day perfect that belief.”
I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that this post caught him off guard, or that perhaps he was simply in a hurry, or that he really didn’t care that much, or that he just wanted to irritate me. Admittedly, it’s not often these days you find Christians in agreement with portions of the Old Testament. If Tat wants to come back and be reasonable, he’s more than welcome here, even in disagreement. I understand someone arriving at unbelief, but why the vitriol? And notice the lack of ESR in the vitriol itself. Tat possesses no empirical knowledge that anyone here is insane or nuts on the basis of one blog post.
So, following your lead, I’d also like to address Tat’s daughter for a moment and advocate for women. On Tat’s blog, he worries that girls such as his daughter locate their self-worth in their looks, and that young men locate theirs in strength, competition, and ability. Are we not surprised? Isn’t this the logical and natural consequence of a naturalistic worldview that praises these attributes as the deliverances of natural selection? Haven’t we been bombarded with the evolutionary notion that the fittest males and most attractive females are the prime mating partners in possession of genes that will be passed along barring some environmental upheaval that suddenly or gradually favors another group?
From the opposing point of view, God loves daughters exactly as they are; He does not make mistakes. Furthermore, a woman’s beauty comes from within, according to Paul. What a difference a worldview makes. (and where’s the next womanhood post from Shemaromans?)
But especially in terms of rape do the worldviews clash. Shall we ask exactly what grounds the wrongness of rape in a naturalistic system? Tat seems to think, rightly, that it’s wrong. I’d like to know why he thinks that, on the basis of ESR, of course.
And, yes, Cat, I was one that was helped immensely by your background knowledge of the Numbers account. So post away, my friend. That’s two from you here as good as I’ve seen anywhere.
Thx dude. It’s always good to polish one’s swashbuckles. :~)
In the interests of full attribution, I believe it was Francine Rivers who wrote one of her Old Testament character novellas with precisely this setting of Gentile POW and marriage contract to Israeli soldier. Beautiful and poignant as well as educational. Rivers is a consummate researcher, and her work always leads me back into Scriptural study.
“I have slowly become better at another view of the world. One that is more loving, more supportive and friendly.” “Holy whacko batman…[etc]”
Yeah, this is a common contradiction in certain circles–I got quite used to it at one point, which is why it just amuses me now.
“Shall we ask exactly what grounds the wrongness of rape in a naturalistic system?”
Quite the opposite, turn on the nature channel and my children can easily find themselves bombarded by deep, authoritative voices propounding naturalistic justifications of rape behaviours as a selection mechanism in orangutans (the strong and the initiative-takers survive) while reinforcing female passivity to and acceptance of sexual aggression as a standard trait of humanity’s near cousins.
I think another point that bears mentioning is the Levitical laws regarding menstrual impurity, still practiced in Orthodox communities today. On a practical level, what these laws end up meaning for the couple is no physical contact for two weeks out of every month. Loving couples nowadays tend to chuckle over the intensity this brings to the other two weeks, and talk about how it keeps the marriage fresh, also adding a regular period of nonsexual romance and renewed courtship.
For unloving couples, what it does it provide parity in terms of whose desires are fulfilled how often. God is not stupid about the sin nature.
“and where’s the next womanhood post from Shemaromans?”
I’d like to know that too. I found the first one just immensely uplifting. I didn’t really have anything to say, I just sat there and savoured it, then read it again.
Just because I think you guys are nuts doesnt mean Im not loving. Im not suggesting we beat you to death and rape your family, am I? That is the joy of free speech, wouldnt you agree?
Hey Tat,
Actually, thanks for coming back…I’ll feel much better if we can hammer out as civil a dialogue as you feel you can have with crazy folk. My impression from your blog is that you probably are striving to be a caring sort.
Yes, that’s one joy of free speech; another is its tendency to expose emotionalism and illogical argumentation when activated 🙂
“Im not suggesting we beat you to death and rape your family, am I? ”
No need to confirm my conclusion that you’re not God, Tat…I already figured it out.
Sincerely, though, glad you made it back by…
“No need to confirm my conclusion that you’re not God, Tat…I already figured it out.”
Oh, sheesh, a little warning please Marc!! (Sprawled in chair unable to breathe, ribs heaving)
Cathi-Lyn, thank you for the kinds word and encouragement. It’s one thing coming from Quixote but quite another coming from someone I don’t know but whose quality of thinking and writing has been a pleasure to read in the Areopagus.
And, Tat, fyi, I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing at Marc’s propensity for a peculiar turn of phrase that causes me to snort Coke (diet, that is :~). This is not the first time his blog (de facto, my computer screen, which makes this a very bad side effect of Marc) has nearly ended up wearing a beverage for decoration.
Look, if you want me to take you seriously, don’t default to the 1st Amendment dodge. I’m Canadian anyway, and in my country we have hate speech legislation under which you could potentially be liable for your behaviour here, were this a genuinely combative situation under this legal jurisdiction. Legitimacy on the basis of nationality/legal purview is not a reasonable defense of your claims.
Instead, show me why it’s not contradictory to claim that you’re striving to be more loving even while attempting a public shaming on me for words you’ve forced into my mouth entirely against my will and without my consent.
Or, if that’s a bit too personal a ground by this point, pick a non-personal idea from my statements or Marc’s and address your thoughts to the individual commenter for some one-on-one exchange of ideas. You have the potential ability to change people’s minds about things if you take the time to state your case clearly and in order.
If it seems I’m being hard on you, ultimately it’s because I’d like to clear away the silliness–which I think is beneath you as a human being–and get to hear some actual ideas from you. We all have something to teach one another. As soon as you move to that type of exchange you’ll find me a lot less inclined to buckle my swashes in response.
Shemaromans,
Thanks in return. But you are going to write again soon, aren’t you? That’s the salient point in my mind. :~)
Blessings,
Cat
Cat
What can I teach you? You believe in a G-d that can be seen, cant be proven by any stretch of the imagination(other than imagination, faith). So as you are a stated Christian, I believe your view of a G-d to be nuts. If you are shamed by that, that is your decision. Oh and by the way, if condoning of murder and rape by your G-d is logical, whats wrong with a little public shaming? 😉
I do remember my very loving Grandma doling out appropriate shame every once and a while. I dont think its had any lasting negative affects though.
You believe in a G-d that can be seen,
Oops and that should have read “cant be seen”
“What can I teach you? You believe in a G-d that can be seen, cant be proven by any stretch of the imagination(other than imagination, faith).”
Hey Tat,
If you wish to teach someone, and by extension shame them, you’ll need to at minimum present an argument (yes, I split infinitives when I feel like it). You’ve yet to approach the vicinity of one that is not mere bluster or bald assertion. That’s the subplot of this post: the ESR is extremely one-sided with regard to the GGO.
I’m genuinely curious. Do you acknowledge that Christianity is internally consistent, logically, with regard to the GGO, or not? If not, why?
I’m genuinely curious. Do you acknowledge that Christianity is internally consistent, logically, with regard to the GGO, or not? If not, why?(MSQ)
Yes, I would agree with you that it is. It did get me thinking about something though. My brother was a schizophrenic and I now realize that in his mind he was completely logical in his belief that he was a double agent for the Soviets and Canadians. Internally consistent and logical within that belief system. So sorry for my emotional outburst.
My compliments for admission of internal consistency.
It interests me, though, Tat, that you would spend time thinking on a non-sequitur. Nevertheless, it would appear that your brother’s belief may have been internally consistent, yet it lacked warrant due to malfunctioning cognitive faculties and, presumably, by your overwhelming de facto evidence that he was, in fact, not a double agent.
To apply your analogue here appears an evidential burden much heavier than you can bear. Actually, I don’t think you can manage to carry it to your keyboard, much less demonstrate it. Emotionalism, indeed…feel free to give it a shot.
Well MSQ, like my brother was unable to prove his wonderful skills as a double agent, you equally cannot prove the G-d of the bible exists. So with that said, I have no issue in questioning your sanity just as we questioned his. The burden lies on you. Now if you wish us to talk about the logic of a myth, I have no problem doing that.
Good on you, Tat. :~) I am so glad to meet the real you.
Cheers,
Cat
“Well MSQ, like my brother was unable to prove his wonderful skills as a double agent, you equally cannot prove the G-d of the bible exists. So with that said, I have no issue in questioning your sanity just as we questioned his. The burden lies on you. Now if you wish us to talk about the logic of a myth, I have no problem doing that.”
You’re not going to be able to hide behind the atheist burden of proof faith shield on this one, Tat. You’ve made the positive claim that I’m insane because I believe in the God of the Bible. To ensure the applicability of your analogue you’ll need to demonstrate that my cognitive functions are malfunctioning, or that the God of the Bible does not exist: Your brother’s insanity is irrelevant. But all that requires argument, something you seem reticent to produce.
MSQ…. You claim something to be true and real just as my brother did. You can no more prove it than he could. If his cognitive functions were malfunctioning, then why is it not logical to suppose yours may be too? And by the way, when did I lay claim to being atheist? Just because I think there is no logical proof for the biblical G-d doesnt mean I dont believe in the possibility of a creator of sorts. I just will not be arrogant enough to think I know what it may be.
Cat
Thanks. 🙂
“MSQ…. You claim something to be true and real just as my brother did. You can no more prove it than he could.”
My claim here was on the GGO and Christianity’s internal consistence in relation to the GGO. I think it’s proven.
No hiding, Tat. Make an argument…I’ve only asked you how many times now? What’s the holdup? Have you noticed that I produced an argument with the OP which you were allowed to criticize. Cat produced two which you were allowed to criticize. Yet, you won’t put one out there. Time to put up, Tat. Quit hiding. It’s your positive claim, which comes with the attendant burden of proof.
“And by the way, when did I lay claim to being atheist?”
Come to think of it, I suppose you didn’t. I associated atheism with you from SI’s. My apologies.
However, if you would actually make an argument, or say something of substance, perhaps we wouldn’t be forced to guess…
“MSQ…. You claim something to be true and real just as my brother did. You can no more prove it than he could. ”
Do you really not recognize the epistemic distance between you, your crazy brother, and what you can possibly know about me? You’re in no position to know what I know, how I know it, or why it’s compelling to me.
“Just because I think there is no logical proof for the biblical G-d doesnt mean I dont believe in the possibility of a creator of sorts.”
I’m Ok with this, Tat, even if you say there is no God. If you’ve considered the evidence and it doesn’t rise to the level of proof, or it’s simply unconvincing to you, I accept that without charging you with craziness, even though the evidence to me is in favor of the Christian God.
“I just will not be arrogant enough to think I know what it may be.”
You should save this stuff for your own circle of friends. There you guys can continually reinforce each other until you convince each other it’s true. Are you really so dense that you can’t see that’s all that charges of insanity and arrogance amount to? They don’t provide any rationality to the question at hand: I might as easily claim you’re insane because you can’t see what’s obviously true. That, or you’re too arrogant to admit that it exists. See how this leads to nothing but middle school taunting?
Or is it that you’re just in over your head here and have nothing to offer other than agnostic cliches when you emerge from behind the burden of proof agnostic faith shield?
MS
If you wish me to agree that within the context of your faith, your view is logical. Then I will give you that. But considering there are 33,000 spin offs on Christianity, you cannot make the assertion that it is logical. Obviously even within the confines of the title “christian” there is heated debate. Just ask a liberal to a conservative their views on Homosexuality. The logic is there on both sides. I dont know you, so it is within my rights and view to see you as a little nuts considering your stance on what you deem the creator to be. I dont see your evidence as compelling. In fact it wouldnt even be admissable in a court of law as it is completely hearsay. If you choose to believe it be my guest. But, a woman made from a man’s rib, a talking snake and a G-d that takes on 3 forms do seem just a tad of a stretch for my belief system. So back to your “faith”, within that system it is logical to believe that he would be ok with murder and rape, as the scripture sometimes state. Now other than your faith(belief) and some ancient scriptures do you have any way of proving it to me?
“In fact it wouldnt even be admissable in a court of law as it is completely hearsay.”
Tat, I have two volumes on my shelf entitled “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” which address Christianity in terms of legal burden of proof and do not find it lacking. I would suggest that this statement, too, has laid on you a burden of proof which you’ve incurred the responsibility to sustain as a thinking adult.
“do you have any way of proving it to me?”
This is not real evidentiary reasoning. Anyone can make a case *for* anything by ignoring contradictory information. Instead, let’s include consideration of potential contradiction in this way: Can you falsify it to me? That’s a starting point. When we want to know if something’s true, we should first try to show whether it’s false. As such, as Marc has consistently said (and I can hear him getting tired of repeating himself) you have created a burden of proof to fulfill in your claims regarding lack of proof. He is fulfilling his burden within the materials he addressed in his post, and in planning to expand into the areas of argument not covered within the limited word-count required by a single blog article.
“considering there are 33,000 spin offs on Christianity, you cannot make the assertion that it is logical”
Again, not an accurate statement, in that the a priori’s of the various spinoffs can be evaluated for logical consistency and falsified where they fail to stand up. Marc has written elsewhere that biblical interpretation is not as mishmash as some like to assert (without supporting the claim again), and he has a post category here devoted to the subject where he takes a passage and makes an example of it. Think of it as being like an FAQ page designed to eliminate needless repetition of argument–or, pardon me, claims.
“within that system it is logical to believe that he would be ok with murder and rape”
Getting very, very tired of this unfounded assertion, Tat, as it makes me feel that while I’ve tried to present you with information on the rape question, you haven’t even taken the time to read what I’ve offered to you. If you’d like to address a different section of Scripture on the topic, please bring it to the table. No one’s going to (ahem) crucify you for it. This is a place where we *try* to poke holes in the Bible to find out where we’re thinking wrong about it.
There’s nothing to hide from around here. It’s not a vituperative forum. It’s far, far above the level of grade-school taunting. However, as a returning guest to Marc’s dialogues, I can attest that fully reasoned and accurately supported argumentation is necessary to participation. I have exercised great restraint, actually, in the hopes that you would get comfortable and enter in to such a discussion if given time to resolve your logical inconsistencies yourself. Show me I’m not wrong in thinking maybe you’ve got some moxie behind those assertions of yours.
Regards,
Cat
http://de-conversion.com/2009/08/06/skepticism-vs-faith/
This guy speaks much more eloquently than I.
Hey Tat,
Based on what I’ve seen from you here, you’re a stand-up guy. I invite you to share whatever is on your mind whenever the mood strikes you, regardless of whether you agree or not. IOW, you’re welcome here.
Since you’ve deferred to Josh’s site, I’m going to leave my comments there. We’ll see what becomes of it, if anything. This part of his post is for you, however:
“Skepticism can be summed up with: ‘I don’t know, now let us find out: and I will accept whatever the test reveals – even if it is to my own harm.'”
MSQ…………Thanks………..
MSQ………..I see youre in tough…….;
Come on, Tat…the last time I thought total skepticism was intellectually challenging, I was in the third grade 🙂
Back to using ESR, from the back of Marc’s book:
“Marc Schooley…is a Christian philosopher, theologian, Bible teacher, speaker, musician, and nascent Christian fiction writer…”
Or you could look around the site for his creds. His publisher also refers to him as “a NASA superbrain with a big heart.”
Don’t taunt, ‘kay? If you want to tell a joke around here, quote Leslie Nielsen or Monty Python. (Just don’t call him Shirley.)
I think we’d both like to like you regardless of differences. I’ll freely admit I’m in over my head talking with Marc; I come here because it’s one of the few places where that’s okay. He’s got game, but he’s not out to flaunt it at the expense of others, and that keeps it fun. You stay on the fun side too.
Have a good one, Tat buddy.
Cat
[…] God Condone Rape? Pt 4 2009 August 18 by C.L. Dyck Wondering where this started? in The Areopagus comments | Part 1 | Part 1B | Part 2 | Part […]
[…] in The Areopagus comments | Part 1 | Part 1B | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 […]
[…] God Condone Rape? Pt 3 2009 August 15 by C.L. Dyck Wondering where this started? in The Areopagus comments | Part 1 | Part 1B | Part […]
[…] in The Areopagus comments << >> Part 1B | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 […]
[…] in The Areopagus comments | Part 1 | Part 1B | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 […]
Cheeze and crackers, what’s been going on here?
[…] 8 by C.L. Dyck So let’s get something straight: When God acts to end life, as Marc pointed out some time ago, the skeptic’s response is often, “Big mean unfair genocidal […]