Help Needed for debate!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2016, 09:59 AM
Help Needed for debate!
Hi guys, I'm debating a Christian and I've hit something of an impasse of my historical knowledge. Its someone who is obviously well versed in apologetics and I just need to make sure his arguments and history checks out: basically here are his ripostes and I wondered if anyone could help me, it would be much appreciated as I have the suspicion this guy is talking in half truths, these are his answers when I asked him to answer certain passages: (I may have to post a few posts to cover his replies).

'The account of the Midanites was one of the most shameful events in Israels history but again you have cherry picked. The Midanites had spent the previous hundred years or so trying to kill all the Israelites, with this event the Midanites hatched a plan to use their wives and daughters to seduce Israels men and thus unarmed the Midanites men would then kill all the Israelites. The stupid men in Israel fell for it, God punished them as he said he would and then punished the Midanites saving Israel and made the Israelites look look after the innocent Midanites children. Sneaking up on your enemy to cut their throat while you have your wife fucking them, charming.

The piece from Deuteronomy meant during war people were spared, you are mis reading it. Other countries wouldn't have done that plus the Israelites had to look after all the helpless - forever, what other nation did that in these times?

The first bit on rape.

Edit 22:28 - you have this wrong, it's a life sentence for the rapist, the women is looked after all her life read it properly.

Vs 23, 24. It's not describing rape its describing adultery, no indication of your charge of property.

2 Sam. David killed a man for his wife and God punished him severely, once again you have ignored the context.

Edit 21:10. The man is bound by God to care for the woman all his life, don't forget the woman would've been left destitute otherwise. He can't just have his way with her, if you read it properly she can actually choose if she wants the relationship to go ahead (shave her head, etc) and he can't dispose of her. In other words the guy's decisions have life long consequences.

Judges. In this cherry pick you ignore all the rules God sets out for dealing with captives, some of which I've alluded to above.

See how much trouble cherry picking driven by ignorance and prejudice gets you into.'

In answer to your Cherrypick from Matthew 5 a) what is the law e.g. does it include the numerous regulations found listed in places like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, b) what is the purpose of the Law and c) how does it relate to the new covenant (hint what happened on the cross and what was its purpose - remember how cherrypicking are picked out according to your assumptions and you haven't shown any sign of question your assumptions, a pillar of rational thinking).

2 Tim - and your point in cherrypicking this, how does it support your 'assumptions'? Likewise the bit about prophecy.

Mark 7 and Matthew 15 - you didn't read these did you. Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of the leaders by how they take a particular regulation and twist it to get around it. Note Jesus did not comment on the regulation/law itself. Your twisting of scripture is just like that of the leaders Jesus condemned. Congratulations!

Matthew 5, Leg Over laws - to twist this bit of scripture you have to deny that Jesus forgives. Again he used it to highlight two things: hypocrisy and as scripture says elsewhere sin comes from what we think as Jesus so powerfully showed when the woman caught in adultery was dragged in from of him (notice the hypocrites didn't bring the guy......just saying) and he shamed the hypocrites through reminding them of lust and they were guilty as well and then he forgives the woman (yet Jesus is the upholder of the law so you are gonna have to figure that out).

Peter on slavery, first thing you don't understand how the laws around bond servants in the OT subvert the whole idea of slavery, secondly Peter was writing to congregations that included slaves and in their new found freedom they could've easily made the mistake of leaping down the Appian away yelling "I'm free, I'm free!" only to have the nearest Centurion reply, "no you're not" and run his sword through them. In this situation Peter is encouraging all the people in that congregation and to the slaves as he could do nothing for their situation he was encouraging them to make use of it to show how God affected their lives.'
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
Welcome.

Why don’t you take a look at this resource thread, you might find much more than you need. Good luck.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rce-thread

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
Sorcery, you are wasting your time. This guy is a liar and a cheat and will not listen to any reason. He also likes the word "cherry-picking", when its obvious that he's one doing the cherry-picking. Try to pin him down on one topic and don't deviate from it on any pretext till he's forced to admit defeat.

For what it's worth ask him the following questions about the Midianite virgins in Numbers 31:

1. Why did God tell the Israelites to kill the Midianites for leading the nation of Israel astray in the matter of Balaam when it was Moab and Amalek that did the deed?

2. God only "spared" the virgins because the Israelites disobeyed Moses and spared the women, children and cattle. Moses originally told the Israelites to slaughter every living thing.

3. How did the Israelite soldiers know which women were virgins? Pelvic exams? Divine revelation? What if they got it wrong and killed a virgin and spared a non-virgin? How long did it take to examine all the Midianite women and separate the virgins and the non-virgins (see below)

4. In the end, the Israelites "saved" 32,000 virigins. How many non-virgin women and boys did they kill if they saved 32,000 virgins? How did they kill all these people. Beheading? How long did it take?

5. God told the Israelites to save 320 virgins for the Levites and 32 virgins for himself. What did he do with the virgins? What did the Levites do with virgins.

Prepare for an avalanche of rationalization or deafening silence.

Regards,
Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like docskeptic's post
02-09-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
The Skeptics Annotated bible should be able to help you with some rebuttals.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Also here is a list of 613 Commandments most Religious people over look.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...mmandments

Quote:Edit 22:28 - you have this wrong, it's a life sentence for the rapist, the women is looked after all her life read it properly.

Vs 23, 24. It's not describing rape its describing adultery, no indication of your charge of property.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city.
-- Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Most ancient cultures people didn't marry out of love. They married out of obligation. Joining two families, or paying off a debt was often the reasoning for this. Young girls many of the time would be married before they were even born. Having a child bride was not uncommon and a practice still in implocations in those regions today.

I can't supply the link but look up Adam Ruins Everything "the Hymen". Explaining that their is no real way of learning if a woman is a virgin or not. Testing a woman's "virginity" usually meant she was going to bleed when they stuck their dick inside of them.

This verse if very specific that the woman would have to be a virgin,that she would have to be betrothed and it would have to be in the city.

The the line "the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city." Can be taking I think one of two way. If the woman didn't call for help, that's he own fault. Or Since it didn't hurt badly when she had sex is indication she wasn't a virgin.

Victom blaming in it's finist. Now let's pretend this is about adultery. Fucking death?

[Image: e31.jpg]

Wasn't their some sort of rule "god" was really happy 3 chapters before that?

Something about thought shale not kill or something?

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. ... For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. -- Deuteronomy 22:25-27

So this verse follows right after the last one. This is clearly about rape. So why wouldn't the one before that be.

Is the author calling city girls whores? Why would the ones in the not cry out but the one's in the country side would? If someone saw the girl being raped in the city didn't help how is that the girls fault? And if no one saw the rape how would the rapist ever be caught? The girl probably wouldn't want to say anything. She would be stoned to death if she did.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. -- Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Sweet deal for the victim huh? Geting to live with your rapist for the rest of your life. It's treating women like objects. She's not worth as much as she was when she was a virgin. And again only if their caught. So if the victim tried to tell or ask anyone in athurity for help she would be killed or forced to married him.

I'm sure that rapist is going to take real good care of her. What divine justice! #sarcastic

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. -- Numbers 31:15-18


Kill all the little boys. Kill married woman or non-virgin (remember stick your dick in to see if she bleeds) But all the little girls you can keep them because they're live stock. Make them live you so they can be reminded that you killed their families. Use them how you see fit. Sell them, make them clean your house. And remember virgins = good lay.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Commonsensei's post
02-09-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
Any story that has an invading army killing every man, non-virgin woman & child and only keeping the virgin women alive, you know why. Every person knows why.

Those girls are going to get raped. End if story.

To have someone say otherwise is just a liar of biblical proportions.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 06:54 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
(02-09-2016 09:59 AM)Sorcery Wrote:  The piece from Deuteronomy meant during war people were spared, you are mis reading it. Other countries wouldn't have done that plus the Israelites had to look after all the helpless - forever, what other nation did that in these times?

The first bit on rape.

Edit 22:28 - you have this wrong, it's a life sentence for the rapist, the women is looked after all her life read it properly.

Vs 23, 24. It's not describing rape its describing adultery, no indication of your charge of property.

Your Christian friend is correct. Deu 22:22 is about adultery, 23 is also about adultery and 28 is about rape.

The rapist is required to offer to financially support his rape victim for the rest of her life and he can't ever get out of it. Whether or not a modern woman would want to marry her rapist, in ancient times, a non-virgin would have had a harder time finding a husband and law this is to meant to give her the option to live a life of financial security. To properly understand this passage, you should probably understand the laws of marriage in Judaism, seeing as this is a Jewish book. Some women might rather like taking her rapist's money and never allowing him into the home that he pays for.

But there's a silver lining to the passage in 22:23, as this specifies that a betrothed virgin is considered fully married, and that having relations with her constitutes adultery. The woman's obligation is to call out against her attacker. Being found in the city is a euphemism for being somewhere or being in a condition where she could have cried out for help, and didn't.... so this would be adultery. Being out in the field is a euphemism for the woman not being capable of crying out for help. Even if the sexual encounter took place in the city, if the woman was physically prevented from calling out for help, then it's rape. Obviously.

This clarification is clearly spelled out in the Talmud, which includes a 2,000 year old commentary on the Jewish laws written in the Torah.

Incidentally, according to the New Testament, the Christians describe that Mary was a fully married woman who was approached in the city, and did not cry out for help but rather willingly participated in whatever sexual encounter took place to conceive Jesus. She should have been tried for adultery but Joseph was too much of a mensch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 07:10 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
Hey Guys and Gals, thanks very much for your time in helping me (Atheists unite!)
I used all your points in all your rebuttals (now I brace myself for his massive essay sized reposte, an odyssey of cognitive dissonance) I also added in this little chestnut of my own:
'Also finally at the end of the day, what on earth elevates your assertion of a god against the thousands of other gods and deities that previous and current cultures worship, the gods of the Hindus, Native Americans, Vikings, the pantheism of the ancient Greeks the Ancient Egyptians etc. Your assertion can only ever be on par with the amount of evidence for these asserted gods, don't you go to sleep at night and wonder that if there is a god you are statistically stratospherically disadvantaged? The chances of you being born into a culture where you have been indoctrinated to the right God is infinitesimal. Evenb if you actually chose this God the ones on offer that are being taken seriously at that particular moment in history (wouldnt everyone laugh if you decided the evidence was stacked behind the ancient Greek gods, and you threw your lot in with them?) the chance of it being the right one is tiny. Essentially you're only one god off of being as much of an atheist as me by discounting all the thousands of others we even know about.'
Thanks again Heathens, love to you all!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 08:04 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
Tell him or her that they are 99.9% atheist.
Then list all the gods that neither of you believe exist and the reasons why.

Answer - no evidence to support belief.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 01:18 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
(02-09-2016 06:54 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 09:59 AM)Sorcery Wrote:  The piece from Deuteronomy meant during war people were spared, you are mis reading it. Other countries wouldn't have done that plus the Israelites had to look after all the helpless - forever, what other nation did that in these times?

The first bit on rape.

Edit 22:28 - you have this wrong, it's a life sentence for the rapist, the women is looked after all her life read it properly.

Vs 23, 24. It's not describing rape its describing adultery, no indication of your charge of property.

Your Christian friend is correct. Deu 22:22 is about adultery, 23 is also about adultery and 28 is about rape.

The rapist is required to offer to financially support his rape victim for the rest of her life and he can't ever get out of it. Whether or not a modern woman would want to marry her rapist, in ancient times, a non-virgin would have had a harder time finding a husband and law this is to meant to give her the option to live a life of financial security. To properly understand this passage, you should probably understand the laws of marriage in Judaism, seeing as this is a Jewish book. Some women might rather like taking her rapist's money and never allowing him into the home that he pays for.

But there's a silver lining to the passage in 22:23, as this specifies that a betrothed virgin is considered fully married, and that having relations with her constitutes adultery. The woman's obligation is to call out against her attacker. Being found in the city is a euphemism for being somewhere or being in a condition where she could have cried out for help, and didn't.... so this would be adultery. Being out in the field is a euphemism for the woman not being capable of crying out for help. Even if the sexual encounter took place in the city, if the woman was physically prevented from calling out for help, then it's rape. Obviously.

This clarification is clearly spelled out in the Talmud, which includes a 2,000 year old commentary on the Jewish laws written in the Torah.

Incidentally, according to the New Testament, the Christians describe that Mary was a fully married woman who was approached in the city, and did not cry out for help but rather willingly participated in whatever sexual encounter took place to conceive Jesus. She should have been tried for adultery but Joseph was too much of a mensch.

Even thou it brings slight clarification. It still falls into some of the problems that often arrise.

1. The woman is still a victim.
2. The woman was already put into a compromising postion. What would prevent this rapist from muzzling her to prevent her from calling for help. Threatening her life with a weapon. Having her screams being drowned out by the comings and goings of everyday city life. Or what about a gang of men working together?

I've been a victim (not of rape thankfully) but of bulling where my well being was compromised and I was a guy. I was pushed off a cliff then beaten with stones. I was pinned to a wall chocked with a staff and had objects tossed in my eyes for sport. Each time I was within ear shot of help and was prevented. Now at the time I was a boy. But how could a young girl had done anything different. And when I did tell an authority figure what had happened I was told I was lying.

3. Having to have the rule clarified is just an example of poor management, and poor planing. Should a divine being intended for rules to be carried out it would be for clear. Not tied up depending on metaphor. The negative effects can be seen when things aren't clear with groups like ISIS.

Or Bible literalist.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Help Needed for debate!
(07-09-2016 01:18 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Even thou it brings slight clarification. It still falls into some of the problems that often arrise.

1. The woman is still a victim.
2. The woman was already put into a compromising postion. What would prevent this rapist from muzzling her to prevent her from calling for help. Threatening her life with a weapon. Having her screams being drowned out by the comings and goings of everyday city life. Or what about a gang of men working together?

Torah does not cover every single possible situation that can conceivably be played out by humanity, nor does it claim to. It’s designed to provide the Jewish people with a basic set of principles for right and wrong. We must take those principles and apply them to different situations as needed. All Torah is doing here is defining that rape is wrong, and it's making the distinction between actual rape and consensual sex. In the event that the woman has multiple attackers, the Torah tells the Jewish people to rely on a court to decide how best to apply the law.

(07-09-2016 01:18 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I've been a victim (not of rape thankfully) but of bulling where my well being was compromised and I was a guy. I was pushed off a cliff then beaten with stones. I was pinned to a wall chocked with a staff and had objects tossed in my eyes for sport. Each time I was within ear shot of help and was prevented. Now at the time I was a boy. But how could a young girl had done anything different. And when I did tell an authority figure what had happened I was told I was lying.

I’m so sorry! That sounds really horrible. It’s true that in any case of attack, unless there is a witness, it can be seen as one person’s word against the other. I don't see this as a religious issue, though. This is an issue with humanity sometimes doing horrible things. Laws not to attack people are in place, and yet your attackers chose to ignore them. Your attackers may have ignored them whether they were religious laws or civil laws. Clearly, your attackers were not raised to abide by laws and respect others.

I'm very sorry that you didn't get the justice that you deserved. Sad

(07-09-2016 01:18 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  3. Having to have the rule clarified is just an example of poor management, and poor planing. Should a divine being intended for rules to be carried out it would be for clear. Not tied up depending on metaphor. The negative effects can be seen when things aren't clear with groups like ISIS.

Or Bible literalist.

Judaism does not believe that G-d is managing us. In fact, Judaism teaches that G-d lets us fall flat on our faces (every single time) before any intervention will come. That's apparently a distinction between Christianity (where I assume you drew your conclusion from) and Judaism. We believe it’s up to us to follow laws, form laws, refine laws, and be respectful to others so we can live in an ordered, peaceful society. I think that’s what every rational person wants whether they believe in G-d or not.

Judaism teaches that if everyone follows the laws, then you live in a good world. If people break the laws, then we run the risk of living in a bad world. It doesn't say anything about G-d cleaning up our messes or being responsible for giving us a system that we cannot break.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: