Christian school.

[Ted C]

If god told you to kill the entire population of a city(assuming you could) accept for the virgin girls, who he commanded you to rape, and take as your slaves, would you do it?

That's an intrinsically imposible msituation. You'd be as well to ask what I would do if God told me to worship the devil exclusively. Ain't going to happen. God is by his nature perfetly moral, righteous and just. Rape is wrong, therefore he would never ask anyone to do it.

It is not an intrinsically impossible situation, since God has given exactly such orders, according to the Bible (Numbers 31). Yes, it occurred in the Old Testament, but it did take place.

Based on your previous statements, I assume that you would carry out such an order from God. Your moral code is "Do what God says". You simply assume that anything God says will be morally right.

The Bible, however, indicates that God can commit evil and occasionally even repents of evil; in Exodus 32, Moses talks God out of slaughtering the Israelites that he brought out of Egypt.

So...
1) God can do evil.
2) God can be talked out of doing evil.
3) You have said you will do anything God instructs you to do, without argument as far as I can tell.

You may therefore find yourself doing evil, simply because you won't question God's instructions the way Moses did.

[Jonathan]

[Ever heard of the Questionable Cause or Post Hoc fallacies?
You must prove that those events were indeed caused by god or prayers.

I've heard of them and I don't have to prove anything to you. Miracles don't happen to make the unfaithful faithful. I'm giving you my account of what happened and you can choose yourself whether to believe. Given that you don't believe in God, you will claim it is pure coincidence and nothing I can say will change your mind.

Duh, people who have faith are prone to attributing events that are no more then then the result of happenstance to god, prayers or some such bullshit. The burden of proof lrests on you to prove that those events were indeed caused by god. And remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The claim was that God is silent. I'm saying that plenty of people have attested to witnessing miracles, having prayers answered. I personally know a guy in the year below me who, when he came to Oxford, had a desire to meet someone called Jonathan who could tell him more about God. He had never met me before and has since become a Christian.

[Jonathan]

It is not an intrinsically impossible situation, since God has given exactly such orders, according to the Bible (Numbers 31). Yes, it occurred in the Old Testament, but it did take place.

He doesn't say anything about raping people there.

Based on your previous statements, I assume that you would carry out such an order from God. Your moral code is "Do what God says". You simply assume that anything God says will be morally right.

God is moral and says that rape is immoral, therefore he would not order it.

The Bible, however, indicates that God can commit evil;

No it doesn't. Provide proof of your claim.

and occasionally even repents of evil; in Exodus 32, Moses talks God out of slaughtering the Israelites that he brought out of Egypt.

So...
1) God can do evil.

No he can't. Please point out which verse you think says that. And it would have been perfectly right for God to kill them all because they disobeyed his commands. He later punished them with a plague.

2) God can be talked out of doing evil.

No he can't, as he would never do evil. And God is omniscient, so he knew exactly what Moses would say. His plan all along was to make Moses realise the seriousness of the situation, the need for and importance of mercy and to make him feel involved as well.

3) You have said you will do anything God instructs you to do, without argument as far as I can tell.

You may therefore find yourself doing evil, simply because you won't question God's instructions the way Moses did.

God never ordered evil and never will.

[Sektor31]

Aren't you the people that believe in fairies/elves? Whatever happened to that religion anyway? Replaced by the "more enlightened" Christianity?

Huh? By you people do you mean the Irish Celts? You do realise that that was quite a while ago, right? And that what you believe isn't decided by where you live?

Yes, I realize that. No, you do not have to believe in them because you live in Ireland. But I have always thought that many Irish still believe in them. I could be wrong though, so tell me what the percentages are.

If you say you only had faith for a while, then you never really had faith.

This was awhile ago, back during my years in Catholic school. I was taught that everything went on because of that

EDIT: Damn enter key, anyway I was taught that everything went on because of God's will, then when I learned science, I realized that I could ration God out of the equation.

[Jonathan]

Yes, I realize that. No, you do not have to believe in them because you live in Ireland. But I have always thought that many Irish still believe in them. I could be wrong though, so tell me what the percentages are.

I don't imagine it's very many. I really wouldn't have a clue what the percentages would be. They probably don't poll the old woman in a cottage on the coast on Connaught he chases leprechauns over rainbows.

This was awhile ago, back during my years in Catholic school. I was taught that everything went on because of that

That everything went on because of faith?

[Sektor31]

I don't know. I didn't ask for many details. Why does it matter?

Because I might as well believe that the Roswell crash was real. Unless you have real evidence to back up that claim...

He told me two years ago and since then, we've lost touch as I went off to uni.

There was no sign from outside that there was anything going on. And the feeling was very different to anything they'd experienced before.

Roswell crash sounds even better than this does. I'm willing to bet that not every driver stopped just to enter, and even more just went on their way. It is impossible to just assume the feelings of everyone.

"I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG, THAT'S IT!!!!!!"

I believe it, you don't and I can't prove it to you. That's it.

How convenient you didn't include your earlier statement, which sounded exactly how I said it.

[Jonathan]

EDIT: Damn enter key, anyway I was taught that everything went on because of God's will, then when I learned science, I realized that I could ration God out of the equation.

Science says nothing about God. It says nothing about him not existing. Or existing. It is neutral on the subject. I'm a scientist. Many of my Christian friends are. I see conversions among scientists. Half the people at my church in Oxford are mathematicians or scientists.

If you faith was based on that, then it was based on the wrong foundation. Faith should be based on whether or not you believe the resurrection happened.

[Rye]

That's a very vague, loose scenario for which I would need more details so I would know alternative courses of action that would be open to me. I would pray ofr wisdom and guidance certainly.

It was meant to be a tree of knowledge type of scenario. Imagine for whatever reason, you find a nuke while in the desert, and the bit of desert you're in is part of an al qaeda training camp. Now, you can't move it anywhere, it's too heavy, all you can do is write on in arabic, in tippex, "please don't use this weapon".

Now the islamic fundies see no reason not to, they don't know it's bad, because they're in a holy war against the corrupt west (not that that really matters, the idea im getting across is, they were told not to, but have no knowledge of why not to do it, beyond just being told not to.)

Now imagine you have the extra power of a spade, wouldn't you rather bury it so they never knew of it? seems alot more compassionate to their victims if the muslims just never knew about it, no?

God didn't set them up, in fact he told them not to do it.

But they had no knowledge of what was bad, so it was setting them up.

Why would he when he's not repsonsible for actions we do out of our own free will? Sounds to me like you don't want to take responsibility for your actions.

Bah. Bullshit. i don't blame anything on gods, i would if i believed in it, but im a pantheist, and a mon(o)ist. I understand my actions bring reprocussions in real life, i couldn't care less what happens in the imaginary afterlife. Now if it did exist, and had all the power and attributes it's said to have, then i would blame it for inaction.

Uh, we chose to sin. It's not his repsonsibility to save us. We don't desrve it. Sounds like you want a licence to do whay you want without any fear of represcussions.

as i've already addressed i think about reprocussions in REAL LIFE as opposed to imaginary realms. So why did he give us the opportunity to sin? I'm not a parent, but if i had the chance to give my kid a deathdate or not i would choose not.

They tried to follow the law and failed. The sacrifices they made for a stand in for Jesus. They in themselves did nothing, but were a sign that they were seeking forgiveness, which would come with Jesus and be retorspectively applied.

I really really doubt this. These were the scapegoats of the past, that actually were scapegoats. "Forgiveness" was wanted out of fear that was drilled into them by the priests of the time is my feeling.

What do you mean by almost human sacrifices? Its sounds a little like being almost pregnant.

Abraham. Duh. And Jesus.

For a start, if you sin, there is no reason why you deserve to be forgiven. Sin has to be paid for. And God gave us free will, so we have to choose whether or not we want our sin paid for. We choose whether to follow God. If someone rejects God, they are saying that they want cut off from him, so he gives them exactly that. He cuts them off from him compeltely and in doing so, cuts off their sin from creation. Being cut off from God is being cut off from all that is good and all that is loving. That is why it is torment and suffering. Hell is exactly what the unrepentant are asking for, exactly what they deserve and aexactly what they get.

Depends on the sin. For example, masturbation really isn't worth repenting. Nor is not believing in an unreasonable god idea. Non belief in something without logical proof is not something that is overly awful in my book. Now, should there be an afterlife, and it's clear that god did exist, well i'd repent then, for my ignorance in life due to lack of proof.

What you are asking is 'can God do the intrinsically impossible?' to which the answer is 'no'.

So he's clearly not infinitely powerful, nor can he do "anything". He can only fiollow logic then.

Neither. There are certain things which are intrinsically impossible and make no sense. A free willed being which can make only one choice is intrinsically impossible because it is a contradictory, paradoxial situation.

So god does not have free will then? For it is impossible for him to do the wrong thing, being god?

[Jonathan]

Because I might as well believe that the Roswell crash was real. Unless you have real evidence to back up that claim...

I don't have any evidence other than my word and the word of those I know. I would understand if you didn't believe. I'm not saying it's an overwhelming proof. I"m just saying that I'm sure God still speaks and works.

Roswell crash sounds even better than this does. I'm willing to bet that not every driver stopped just to enter, and even more just went on their way. It is impossible to just assume the feelings of everyone.

I never said it was every driver. Don't you think it's a little odd that people with no intention of going to church would just drive in and start praising God? That a pulpit would suddenly split in two?

How convenient you didn't include your earlier statement, which sounded exactly how I said it.

Yes. It's all a big conspiracy. You do realise that I only ever quote one level deep? Anything else gets too crowded, IMO on web boards. I'd quote 2 or 3 on a newsgroup. If you're calling me a liar that's your problem, because all this is is a clarification. You're effectively saying the same thing about God. You say he definitely doesn't exist, but that's something that can't be proved.

[Jonathan]

It was meant to be a tree of knowledge type of scenario. Imagine for whatever reason, you find a nuke while in the desert, and the bit of desert you're in is part of an al qaeda training camp. Now, you can't move it anywhere, it's too heavy, all you can do is write on in arabic, in tippex, "please don't use this weapon".

Now the islamic fundies see no reason not to, they don't know it's bad, because they're in a holy war against the corrupt west (not that that really matters, the idea im getting across is, they were told not to, but have no knowledge of why not to do it, beyond just being told not to.)

Now imagine you have the extra power of a spade, wouldn't you rather bury it so they never knew of it? seems alot more compassionate to their victims if the muslims just never knew about it, no?

Yes, I would bury it.

But they had no knowledge of what was bad, so it was setting them up.

He told them not to. That was reason enough to leave it alone.

Bah. Bullshit. i don't blame anything on gods, i would if i believed in it, but im a pantheist, and a mon(o)ist. I understand my actions bring reprocussions in real life, i couldn't care less what happens in the imaginary afterlife. Now if it did exist, and had all the power and attributes it's said to have, then i would blame it for inaction.

Are you saying we shouldn't have free will then?

as i've already addressed i think about reprocussions in REAL LIFE as opposed to imaginary realms. So why did he give us the opportunity to sin? I'm not a parent, but if i had the chance to give my kid a deathdate or not i would choose not.

Because he wanted a loving relationship with us. And that required us to have the ability to choose him or reject him.

I really really doubt this. These were the scapegoats of the past, that actually were scapegoats. "Forgiveness" was wanted out of fear that was drilled into them by the priests of the time is my feeling.

Your feeling is irrelevant. Some did it out of fear. Some did it out of love. Some did it because they thought it right. Some thought all three. Regardless of what they felt, the reason God asked it is what is important.

Abraham. Duh. And Jesus.

No need to be rude. It was a bizarre way to phrase it. Abraham never actually killed his sin. God was just testing his devotion and had no intention of actually having the baby sacrificed. Remember that a sheep was provided instead.

As for Jesus, he sacrificed himself and was God as well as man.

Depends on the sin. For example, masturbation really isn't worth repenting. Nor is not believing in an unreasonable god idea. Non belief in something without logical proof is not something that is overly awful in my book. Now, should there be an afterlife, and it's clear that god did exist, well i'd repent then, for my ignorance in life due to lack of proof.

You've been given plenty of evidence. You just haven't believed it. And all sins are turning away from God and require repentance. You're acting as if you know better than God. You're saying you want to live your life your way, rather than his way, which is what he will give you if you persist along this course.

So he's clearly not infinitely powerful, nor can he do "anything". He can only fiollow logic then.

You can be omnipotent, but still not do the intrinsically impossible because those are things which by definition can not ever be done because the situations make no sense. That isn't placing a limit on his power because the situations in question could not ever arise.

So god does not have free will then? For it is impossible for him to do the wrong thing, being god?

That's an interesting question actually. He is free to do what he wants within the bounds of his nature. He is perfectly just, loving, righteous, powerful, knowledgeable, so everything he does must be compatible with those attributes. It's an interesting kind of freedom. In a sense, we're more free than God I guess. And less free. Different ways.

[Ted C]

The Bible, however, indicates that God can commit evil;

No it doesn't. Provide proof of your claim.

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
-- Amos 3:6

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
-- Isaiah 45:7

1) God can do evil.

No he can't. Please point out which verse you think says that. And it would have been perfectly right for God to kill them all because they disobeyed his commands. He later punished them with a plague.

And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
-- Exodus 32:9-14

2) God can be talked out of doing evil.

No he can't, as he would never do evil. And God is omniscient, so he knew exactly what Moses would say. His plan all along was to make Moses realise the seriousness of the situation, the need for and importance of mercy and to make him feel involved as well.

Now you are creatively interpreting the Bible to make it say what you want to believe.

3) You have said you will do anything God instructs you to do, without argument as far as I can tell.

You may therefore find yourself doing evil, simply because you won't question God's instructions the way Moses did.

God never ordered evil and never will.

You have simply defined "evil" in such a way as to make your claim automatically true.

[Durandal]

In the same sense that asking Einstein about the contents of his paper on the theory of relativity would be an appeal to authority. If someone is the ultimate authority on a matter, then there is no problem with appealing to thier judgement.

Appealing to an invisible man who speaks to nobody but yourself is not a legitimate authority. Appealing to a book written by ancient, scientifically ignorant tribesmen who claimed to be divinely inspired isn't a legitimate authority, either.

If God comes down here and starts talking to believers and atheists alike, then we can talk about him being a legitimate authority. Until then, he can safely be assumed to not exist.

Why would your code of morality be any better than God's?

Because it treats everyone as equals and doesn't condone killing innocent babies under any circumstances. My moral code is consistent. Yours relies on whether or not God is feeling charitable on a particular day.

[Jonathan]

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
-- Amos 3:6

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
-- Isaiah 45:7

Let me guess, Sceptics' Annotated? Taken from the KJV? The problem with quoting from a several centuries old translation is that the usage of words has changed. NIV translated it as disaster, not evil. Try using a modern version. There are a great many problems in the KJV in this respect.

And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
-- Exodus 32:9-14

Same problem as above. NIV says disaster, not evil. The word carried a different meaning in the time the KJV was written.

ow you are creatively interpreting the Bible to make it say what you want to believe.

No, I'm taking into account the fact that language has changed over the course of the years and I'm taking the passage in the context of the whole Bible.

You have simply defined "evil" in such a way as to make your claim automatically true.

I believe that God is the source of all good and is perfect, so he is incapable of evil. He defines what good and bad are.

You claim that your morals are good because they are what you define as good.

[Jonathan]

Appealing to an invisible man who speaks to nobody but yourself is not a legitimate authority. Appealing to a book written by ancient, scientifically ignorant tribesmen who claimed to be divinely inspired isn't a legitimate authority, either.

He's spoken to quite a few more people than me and their is good evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

If God comes down here and starts talking to believers and atheists alike, then we can talk about him being a legitimate authority. Until then, he can safely be assumed to not exist.

He did and you still did not believe. It is not illogical for me to entrust morality to a being I believe to be totally moral.

Because it treats everyone as equals

I disagree.

and doesn't condone killing innocent babies under any circumstances.

This has been discussed repeatedly. You are still going round in circles. You are just defining what your morality is, rather than explaining why these things are moral or immoral. It's circular reasoning.

My moral code is consistent. Yours relies on whether or not God is feeling charitable on a particular day.

'I am the Lord your God, I changeth not.' God is eternally and completely charitable. It is perfectly consistent.

[Vympel]

I've heard of them and I don't have to prove anything to you. Miracles don't happen to make the unfaithful faithful. I'm giving you my account of what happened and you can choose yourself whether to believe. Given that you don't believe in God, you will claim it is pure coincidence and nothing I can say will change your mind.

Of course you won't prove anything. Because you can't. 'Miracles' are like that I see

The claim was that God is silent. I'm saying that plenty of people have attested to witnessing miracles, having prayers answered. I personally know a guy in the year below me who, when he came to Oxford, had a desire to meet someone called Jonathan who could tell him more about God. He had never met me before and has since become a Christian.

Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy, you dumbass? Wow, what are the odds he'd meet a Christian in a predominantly religious country whoose name is *gasp!* Johnathan!

He's spoken to quite a few more people than me and their is good evidence for the reliability of the Bible.

Please. An ancient tome of bullshit written by ignorant morons who couldn't even get their damn stories straight about the pivotal event in the entire thing.

'I am the Lord your God, I changeth not.' God is eternally and completely charitable. It is perfectly consistent.

Typical fundamentalist moron:

"Isn't it true Mr Smith that you murdered your wife?"

"I am Jack Smith. I murder not."

"I rest my case, your Honour"

[Sir Sirius]

And how does this make your morality any better? You are comparing God's morality and your morality by the standards of your morality, so of course yours is going to seem better. But it's just a circular argument. It's no justification for saying yours is better.

I am comparing the morality of any 1st world nation to that of YHWH's and I am quite sure that EVERYONE here, apart from fundies like your self, see the difference.

Haven't ordered any rape's, YHWH has. ('Virgin woman are war booty' in Numbers 31:1-18 and 'women must marry their rapists' in Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

God hasn't ordered any rapes. In Numbers, Moses ordered that the virgins not be killed. He never ordered that anyone be forced to have sex or endorsed such behaviour.

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-- Numbers 31:18 (KJV)

kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
-- Numbers 31:18 (NIV)

Quite simple, virgin women ar war booty and you can read what can be done to captive women in Deuteronomy 21:11-14.

The passage in Deuteronomy doesn't order rapes either. It says how the situation should be dealt with. As the joining of two people in sex is regarded as their joining together spiritually, it is right that they marry. It is actually to protect the woman. Otherwise if she married another man, she'd be committing adultery.

Everyone observe, Jonathen just said that raped women should marry their rapists.
If they don't they will be adulterers. Adultery being a crime worthy of a death penalty according to the bible

I have never advocate misoginy, YHWH has. ('Women must be silent' in I Corinthians 14:34-35)

No, that would by Paul saying that women should be silent in church, which was a cultural thing.

It is in the bible, a divinely inspired book writen by god, is it not? Or are you saying that the bible is, or parts of the are, obsolate?

I have never required people to give their daughters to me as burnt offerings, YHWH has. (Jephthah's daughter in Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39)

No he hasn't. God doesn't speak one word in that passage. A guy makes a vow to sacrifice the first thing he sees upon returning from battle. It turns out to be his daughter and she tells him that it is more important to keep his word. She sacrifices herself so that he will not have to break his word. The point of the passage is that keeping our word is important and we should therefore not be rash in making promises as he was. Nowhere does God say 'sacrifice people to me'.

YHWH is omniscient is he not? He knew in advance that Jepthah would sacrifice his daughter to him and did nothing to stop him.
BTW isn't that story kinda stupid? I mean the odds that the first thing to come out of Jepthah's house would be anything other then a member of his family is kinda low. Yet Jepthah (the Moron) made such an oath.

And nowhere have you given an objective reason why your morality is better. Your argument is entirely circular. You are judging the two systems by the standards of your own morality. By that logic, judging the two by God's morality, his will clearly be superior.

Indeed, and Hitler would undoubtetly say that he was a perfectly moral man and that all his actions were fully justified.

I've heard of them and I don't have to prove anything to you. Miracles don't happen to make the unfaithful faithful. I'm giving you my account of what happened and you can choose yourself whether to believe.

Umm... CONCESSION ACCEPTED!

Given that you don't believe in God, you will claim it is pure coincidence and nothing I can say will change your mind.

Wrong! The reason I am an Atheist is that I know of no evidence proving or even indicating that there is a god. Should you provide me with such evidence I would change my mind.

The claim was that God is silent. I'm saying that plenty of people have attested to witnessing miracles, having prayers answered.

But you haven't proven that those prayers were answered. No causal relation between prayer A and event B has been shown.

I personally know a guy in the year below me who, when he came to Oxford, had a desire to meet someone called Jonathan who could tell him more about God. He had never met me before and has since become a Christian.

What is this supposed to prove? That there are morons in the world?

[Jonathan]

Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy, you dumbass? Wow, what are the odds he'd meet a Christian in a predominantly religious country whoose name is *gasp!* Johnathan!

The country as a whole is pretty secular, in common with most western countries. There aren't that many evangelical Christians. And not a huge number called Jonathan. Certianly to expect to meet an evangelical Christian in your college named Jonathan would be uncommon. Though not rare either. It's not rpoof, just another one of those strange coincidences.

Please. An ancient tome of bullshit written by ignorant morons who couldn't even get their damn stories straight about the pivotal event in the entire thing.

The Gospels all agree. They record different details, but they don't conflict.

[Darth Wong]

Science says nothing about God. It says nothing about him not existing. Or existing. It is neutral on the subject.

Wrong. Science says that God is a redundant term in any theory. The scientific method incorporates Occam's Razor, remember?

I'm a scientist. Many of my Christian friends are. I see conversions among scientists. Half the people at my church in Oxford are mathematicians or scientists.

You're a student. Besides, mathematicians are irrelevant, and even scientists aren't immune to stupidity. However, the percentage of scientists who are creationists is less than 1%, far lower than among the general population. Even the power of lifelong brainwashing cannot make a serious dent in the scientific community.

If you faith was based on that, then it was based on the wrong foundation. Faith should be based on whether or not you believe the resurrection happened.

Faith is not based on anything but itself.

[Jonathan]

I am comparing the morality of any 1st world nation to that of YHWH's and I am quite sure that EVERYONE here, apart from fundies like your self, see the difference.

I'm not disputing that there's a difference, I"m disputing whether or not it is good.but so far no-one has been willing to answer that.

]But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-- Numbers 31:18 (KJV)

kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
-- Numbers 31:18 (NIV)

Quite simple, virgin women ar war booty and you can read what can be done to captive women in Deuteronomy 21:11-14.

If they aren't happily married though, the woman gets to go free, so I would say that if she doesn't want to have sex, that's going to annoy the man and she should be freed.

Everyone observe, Jonathen just said that raped women should marry their rapists.

Yes, that's the way things worked then. It was the woman's protection as an unmarried woman who had sex would not have been allowed to marry anyone else and would likely have had to live off the charity of other people.

If they don't they will be adulterers. Adultery being a crime worthy of a death penalty according to the bible

Only applicable to OT times. We now live under grace, not law. 'Let he who is without sin' and all that jazz.

It is in the bible, a divinely inspired book writen by god, is it not? Or are you saying that the bible is, or parts of the are, obsolate?

Yes, it is divinely inspired, however some things are relevant only to certain times. Some of the unclean stuff in Leviticus e.g. dealing with those with infectious diseases, was for medical reasons as they didn't have the technology and knowledge we have now.

YHWH is omniscient is he not? He knew in advance that Jepthah would sacrifice his daughter to him and did nothing to stop him.

There are many evils he doesn't intervene directly in. Anyway, she said she was willing to sacrifice herself.

BTW isn't that story kinda stupid? I mean the odds that the first thing to come out of Jepthah's house would be anything other then a member of his family is kinda low. Yet Jepthah (the Moron) made such an oath.

Did you read what I said? One of its points us the Jepthah is a moron and you should think carefully before promising something to God.

Indeed, and Hitler would undoubtetly say that he was a perfectly moral man and that all his actions were fully justified.

My point exactly. A moral system will always find itself to be superior to another moral system. You have so far said that God's system is inferior to yours because his actions are immoral under your system. All that does is define your morality. It doesn't give any reason to think it's better.

Umm... CONCESSION ACCEPTED!

Why do you call him a moron?

[Darth Wong]

My point exactly. A moral system will always find itself to be superior to another moral system. You have so far said that God's system is inferior to yours because his actions are immoral under your system. All that does is define your morality. It doesn't give any reason to think it's better.

Moral relativist bullshit. Earlier, you agreed that life/pleasure is good and pain/suffering is bad. Therefore, you have already conceded the universality of the simple basis of humanist morality.

Why do you call him a moron?

People who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

[Jonathan]

Wrong. Science says that God is a redundant term in any theory.

That isn't saying he doesn't exist. It just means that we assume the universe will keep running without direct intervention. Science deals purely with the natural, not the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove God.

The scientific method incorporates Occam's Razor, remember?

Occam's Razor is a guide, not a law and is not necessarily right.

You're a student.

Everyone's a student. I'm a science student.

Besides, mathematicians are irrelevant, and

They're pretty well trained in logical thinking.

even scientists aren't immune to stupidity. However, the percentage of scientists who are creationists is less than 1%, far lower than among the general population.

Christians are not always creationists. And it depends on what kind of creationist. A lot of them don't consider the matter relevant. I know a lot of accept evolution. I know a lot who, like me, consider that the Bible is the literal word of God and use it that way for theological purposes, but for any scientific purpose, will look at how the universe appears to work and therefore model it as if it is 15 billion years old. We don't know whether the word translated 'day' is 24 hours or a billion years. All we know is that neither requires a contradiction of conflict with science.

Even the power of lifelong brainwashing cannot make a serious dent in the scientific community.

Yes. Every Christian has been bombarded with life long brainwashing and that's why he believes.

Faith is not based on anything but itself.

Nonsense. You don't just get up one day and decide 'I'm going to believe in God!' There are reasons for having faith.

[Jonathan]

Moral relativist bullshit.

I'm not a relativist. I believe in absolutes. I'm questioing why you believe your moralit to be absolutely true.

Earlier, you agreed that life/pleasure is good and pain/suffering is bad. Therefore, you have already conceded the universality of the simple basis of humanist morality.

I think they are good because God says so and they are part of his morality. I'm curious about why you think they are good. Are they a premise If so, why are they a good premise? Have you simply decided they are? If so, then there is know actual arguable reason for believing that your system of morality is superior.

[Jonathan]

People who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

Your bias shows through again. You believe he is a Christian witohut having being given any evidence. He does have evidence. Tangible evidence, historical evidence. Good reasons to believe.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. Science says that God is a redundant term in any theory.

That isn't saying he doesn't exist. It just means that we assume the universe will keep running without direct intervention. Science deals purely with the natural, not the supernatural. It can neither prove nor disprove God.

Wrong again. It can disprove YOUR God, which is based on Biblical literalism. As for the Vague God, it cannot disprove his existence but that is irrelevant; it cannot disprove the existence of the fire-breathing dragon in Carl Sagan's garage either. The point is that science produces models of the universe, and those models do not require God. Absolute disproof is unnecessary to say that the conclusion of science is that God does not exist.

The scientific method incorporates Occam's Razor, remember?

Occam's Razor is a guide, not a law and is not necessarily right.

It places the burden of proof upon he who would claim that something exists, and you have ignored that burden.

Besides, mathematicians are irrelevant, and

They're pretty well trained in logical thinking.

They are not trained in scientific methods which require both logic and restriction to objective source data, both of which are critical to the method. So much for your claims to understand the scientific philosophy.

Christians are not always creationists. And it depends on what kind of creationist. A lot of them don't consider the matter relevant. I know a lot of accept evolution. I know a lot who, like me, consider that the Bible is the literal word of God and use it that way for theological purposes, but for any scientific purpose, will look at how the universe appears to work and therefore model it as if it is 15 billion years old.

Their careful maintenance of an intellectual double-life is impressive only from the standpoint of asking "how do they keep it up," and says nothing about the scientific credibility of these ideas you spout. The point remains that Biblical literalist Christians such as yourself are EXTREMELY rare among scientists, far more so than they are among the general population. Like it or not, science DOES oppose your belief system. Do not try to change the subject to Vague Christianity.

We don't know whether the word translated 'day' is 24 hours or a billion years. All we know is that neither requires a contradiction of conflict with science.

You're an idiot. A 24-hour Genesis day clearly contradicts science, which is simply incompatible with a 6,000 year old universe, and a billion-year Genesis day still contradicts science, since the first two thirds of this universe's timeline occurred without Earth existing at all; far different from the proportions listed in the Bible. Besides, the word "day" has always meant roughly 24 hours, and even the most primitive man knew to note the rising and setting of the sun.

Even the power of lifelong brainwashing cannot make a serious dent in the scientific community.

Yes. Every Christian has been bombarded with life long brainwashing and that's why he believes.

You dismiss it with sarcasm because you cannot find a solid rebuttal.

Faith is not based on anything but itself.

Nonsense. You don't just get up one day and decide 'I'm going to believe in God!' There are reasons for having faith.

Name one, besides lifelong indoctrination.

[Darth Wong]

People who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

Your bias shows through again. You believe he is a Christian witohut having being given any evidence. He does have evidence. Tangible evidence, historical evidence. Good reasons to believe.

Bias is an irrelevant ad-hominem. You are not even trying to address my points. If he has such good evidence, then why haven't you provided it?

I say again: people who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

If you disagree with that, you should try to find something wrong in that statement, rather than simply saying "oh yeah? You're biased!"

PS. a theory is not proven by showing that parts of it are consistent with observation; a theory is DISPROVEN by showing that key parts of it are severely INCONSISTENT with observation. Any discrepancy between the Bible and our knowledge of the world disproves it as a literal authority, ie- the foundation of your particular belief system.