Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a post-modern cult

[GIThruster]

Have you ever read the bible? There are apologism to slavery, honor killings, rape, incest, obligatory religious wars, and so on.

I have read it. There is acceptance of slavery but no apologism for it. In one place in the NT, a runaway slave is told to return to his former owner. That's hardly an a apologism and it's worth noting that slavery ended because of the broader teaching of the NT.

There is nothing at all in the bible about honor killings. That is a uniquely Islamic teaching.

There is no defense for rape in the bible, but rather it is listed as one of only a handful of capital offenses.

There is no defense of incest in the bible. Rather it was a capital offense.

The only "obligatory war" was when the jews were commanded to take back the promised land that had been theirs before their captivity in Egypt. Are you going to make the argument here there is no such thing as a just war?

I'm afraid if your point as an atheist and bible hater is to discredit its teachings by plucking empty charges and factoids from the air, you'll need to do better. There is a complete difference in kind between what the bible teaches and what the Koran teaches.

[choff]

These 'poor' countries are the ones asking for the loans in the first place, and accept the conditions.
Choff, isnt it moral relativism to attach blame to the money lenders, who could just tell these poor countries to swivel and leave them to rot.

For further information I recommend googling 'The Money Masters', or 'Confessions of a Corporate Hitman', banksters only have to manipulate the people at the very top, or kill them when they don't play ball. Do you know where they get the money they loan out at interest to these countries?

[GIThruster]

Domestic violence and rape are far higher here per capita if you check the numbers. . .

That's because women don't report rapes in Islamic countries. Once raped any woman reporting would be unsuitable for marriage and destined for poverty. The entire social structure in Islamic nations is misogynistic and women live at possessions rather than people. The war in Iraq set 20 million slaves free.

[tomclarke]

There is no defense for rape in the bible, but rather it is listed as one of only a handful of capital offenses.

....

I'm afraid if your point as an atheist and bible hater is to discredit its teachings by plucking empty charges and factoids from the air, you'll need to do better. There is a complete difference in kind between what the bible teaches and what the Koran teaches.

So I guess the examples below (all sanctioned by the Judeo-Christian OT Yahweh) are not rape?

I'm not excusing The Qu'ran, which has its moments too. However enlightended Biblical or Qu'ranic scholars will interpret all the nasty passages and what emerges in both cases is sweetness and light. On the other hand, anyone looking for scriptural support for rape has plenty to choose from. Those were not easy times for women.

Genesis 19:4
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. 5 And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out to the men at the entrance, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” Though not in the end taken up the point is that Yahweh approves of this attempted bargain by Lot and rewards him for it

Deuteronomy 22:23-24
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. OK, here the rapist gets just desserts, but the victim as well?

Numbers 31:15-18
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.

Deuternomy 21:10
When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. Why have I included this? Just think about it for a moment... Are your sisters to be sold for 50 pieces of sliver? And how does forced marriage to a rapist look to you?

[Diogenes]

Not all of course, but there is a pretty strong vein of that sort of stuff amongst various Muslim groups around the world. You seem like you are not at all familiar with Muslim ideology and practices.


Seriously, this stuff is so prevalent in the Muslim community that I am surprised that you are even asking this question. For which accusation would you like to see evidence?

Since we're generalizing based on a small group vs the larger one, all Christians must be pedophiles or complacent in pedophilia due to the rather large scandal that rocked the institution of Christianity. I can provide ample evidence of this corrupt behavior, so...if you're a Christian you're a pedophile or ok with pedophilia, that is simply truth.

Presumably you are referring to (Mostly Homosexual) Catholic priests molesting children. You are then equating the rare instances where these people, in violation of their own religion's principles, molest children in very small (relatively) numbers, to the far more common occurrence, consistent with the example set by the Prophet Mohammedof the wide spread and non remarkable (in their culture) cases in which the Muslims do it.

Sure. They are exactly the same.





Looking for links on this issue has left me at a loss. There are so many, and so many blatant examples, I simply cannot decide which ones to acquaint you with. How about we start with the Ayatollah Kohmeni's "Little green book" ?

From page 56:

If a man who has married a girl who has not reached puberty
possesses her sexually before her ninth birthday, inflicting
traumatisms upon her, he has no right to repeat such an act with
her.

Ayatollah Kohmeni also issued a Fatwa which said this:

‘A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, would not count as one of his (4) permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.’

I actively work in software development where about 50% of my co-workers are muslim from about 700 in my department. I've been to their homes, met their families, observed their community and been invited into their live sin general, nothing of what you say has been true in my observation. I think you've confused Islamic extremism that thrives on dull witted individuals throughout the middle-east/central asia for Islam, which is a fairly peaceful religion. Extremism in any form, Islamic, Christian, Judaism, etc, is a bad thing.

I think the people whom with you are familiar have been somewhat Westernized and Americanized. They are aware that certain practices which are widespread and accepted in Islamic countries, are regarded as great taboos in this country. Would you expect them to admit that their religion teaches practices which are not acceptable by western standards? Slavery is acceptable under Islam, as are a lot of things of which I believe you are unaware. Research it yourself. Here's more links.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/88322077/Some ... bout-Islam


http://www.islam-watch.org/authors/73-b ... rabia.html


http://frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-crim ... -numerous/


http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/ayat ... -four.html

[GIThruster]

Well Tom, I can see why you'd choose these as your foil though I have to wonder what bible bashing site you plucked them from. That was so fast! and I can;t imagine you actually knowing your bible so well and yet misunderstanding it so badly. Answers in short:

The story in Genesis is a story of what supposedly happened. It is nowhere recommended as normative. If your objection is that such things should never happen, that's a pretty lame objection. The fact is, all the historical documents of Old and New Testament record the failings of the people involved much more often than their successes. None of this makes their failure normative.

The story in Deuteronomy 23-24 does not involve rape. It is clear from the meaning of the hebrew "shakab" that this means "to lie down with" and is not forced.

Your quotes from Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21 are special instances that relate to the very special case of taking possession of the promised land. Had the Jews killed every man, woman and child as they were instructed, we would not have the violence that has followed ever since. Instead, the Jews are stuck with fighting for the last 3,300 years. Something to keep in mind should you find it necessary to comment on things you should have paid attention to in Sunday School.

This last quote from Deuteronomy is again a case of poor translation. The Hebrew here is "shakab": which is not a reference to rape but of consensual sex and translates literally to "to lie down with".

I am not arguing that forced marriage and officially sanctioned war don't occur in the OT, and there isa great deal like these above to be explained, but the OT is nothing like the Koran and only atheists and bible bashers pretend so.

[Robthebob]

Some people use big words to be clear and precise with what they're saying. Some people use big words to impress and confuse people.

Granted, if you're a plasma physicist, and you cant briefly explain what you're doing to your grandmother, you're not doing it right. (If your grandmother isnt willing to put forth some effort to try to understand what you're saying, it's not your fault.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

Some of the soft sciences (even the hard sciences) does have some problem, I'm not saying it's not a problem, I'm saying this counter science-elitism is relatively a non-issue, and to bring this subject out in this manner only inappropriately suggest the idea that science and scientists arent trustworthy. Scientists already think other scientists arent trustworthy, we need to all be more honest and have a little bit more faith.

[tomclarke]

Have you ever read the bible? There are apologism to slavery, honor killings, rape, incest, obligatory religious wars, and so on.

There is no defense of incest in the bible. Rather it was a capital offense.

I'm afraid if your point as an atheist and bible hater is to discredit its teachings by plucking empty charges and factoids from the air, you'll need to do better. There is a complete difference in kind between what the bible teaches and what the Koran teaches.

Incest.

Lot again (he was defined as a good and just man):

• Genesis 19:32-36. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

So incest is OK providing the daughter lies willingly with the father and the father nevr knows?

Of course there was also incest early on in Genesis, for obvious reasons. But that, presumably, was OK?

[GIThruster]

So incest is OK providing the daughter lies willingly with the father and the father nevr knows?

There's nothing in the passage that says this behavior is okay, Tom. You would make these simple observations if you didn't have an agenda other than getting at the truth. You're acting most irrational. Must be a passionate issue for you for your judgement to be so clouded.

Of course there was also incest early on in Genesis, for obvious reasons. But that, presumably, was OK?

You tell me if it was okay. The Bible doesn't make comment on it. There is no teaching concerning this for you to object to. I will just note that:

a) Most Jews never took the Genesis stories so literally as modern fundamentalists have in the past century. The question you're asking is result of a host of presumptions you've made that the ancient Jew did not necessarily make.

b) Even if taken literally this is indeed a special case. You're talking about the first two people. Sounds like the kind of complaint we ought to expect from an angry little boy, not an adult; and it's got nothing to do with the issue at hand which was the contention that the Bible supports incest when in fact it taught incest was to be punished by death.

Hard to respect these lines of inquiry, Tom. You're losing credibility fast.

[tomclarke]

Have you ever read the bible? There are apologism to slavery, honor killings, rape, incest, obligatory religious wars, and so on.

There is nothing at all in the bible about honor killings. That is a uniquely Islamic teaching.

I'm afraid if your point as an atheist and bible hater is to discredit its teachings by plucking empty charges and factoids from the air, you'll need to do better. There is a complete difference in kind between what the bible teaches and what the Koran teaches.

I'm really getting into the swing of this...

Honour killings.

• Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
  
  And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:17)
  
  For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. (Lev 20:9)

[tomclarke]

So incest is OK providing the daughter lies willingly with the father and the father nevr knows?

There's nothing in the passage that says this behavior is okay, Tom. You would make these simple observations if you didn't have an agenda other than getting at the truth. You're acting most irrational. Must be a passionate issue for you for your judgement to be so clouded.

It is implied. There is a due reason, the girl is not punished but saved.

As for the early incest: maybe that being not Ok was all part of original sin? But the Bible does not say this.

[tomclarke]

Well Tom, I can see why you'd choose these as your foil though I have to wonder what bible bashing site you plucked them from. That was so fast! and I can;t imagine you actually knowing your bible so well and yet misunderstanding it so badly. Answers in short:

The story in Genesis is a story of what supposedly happened. It is nowhere recommended as normative. If your objection is that such things should never happen, that's a pretty lame objection. The fact is, all the historical documents of Old and New Testament record the failings of the people involved much more often than their successes. None of this makes their failure normative.

The story in Deuteronomy 23-24 does not involve rape. It is clear from the meaning of the hebrew "shakab" that this means "to lie down with" and is not forced.

Your quotes from Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21 are special instances that relate to the very special case of taking possession of the promised land. Had the Jews killed every man, woman and child as they were instructed, we would not have the violence that has followed ever since. Instead, the Jews are stuck with fighting for the last 3,300 years. Something to keep in mind should you find it necessary to comment on things you should have paid attention to in Sunday School.

This last quote from Deuteronomy is again a case of poor translation. The Hebrew here is "shakab": which is not a reference to rape but of consensual sex and translates literally to "to lie down with".

I am not arguing that forced marriage and officially sanctioned war don't occur in the OT, and there isa great deal like these above to be explained, but the OT is nothing like the Koran and only atheists and bible bashers pretend so.

So that's not an apology for rape?

The OT bible and Qu'ran both emerged from nomadic middle Eastern cultures which were highly paternalistic and violent. They have similar mores. You can perhaps trade quote for quote and say the Qu'ran is worse - I don't know because I have not studied the Qu'ran.

I bet Qu'ranic scholars will have similar excuses to those you provide.

But both are bad. Looking at it anthropologically, it is not surprising, texts must be interpreted within the mores of the culture in which they are written. The Qu'ran, thinking about it, probably came from an even worse nomadic culture than the OT, so could well be worse. But it is notable that the Prophet has views extraordinarily enlightened for his times.

This is only troublesome when you claim a religious Book is literally true and has advice that must be followed word for word, as Islams and Christians, but not Jews (?), do.

And I agree, many Christians have an enlightened interpretation of these things, as do many Muslims.

[303]

theres so many things wrong with the bible, koran etc you could make a million new threads, even the ten commandments are impossible to obey and morally questionable

[Diogenes]

The behavior Diogenes described is fairly rampant in the United States via Christians as well.

Rampant?




You simply do not know what you are talking about. (As I have noticed with you on other subjects as well.) By all means, educate yourself on this issue. We'll wait.

Domestic violence and rape are far higher here per capita if you check the numbers,

HA! Yeah, they keep real good numbers regarding the brutalizations of women and children. HA! I know how to wake you up perhaps.They EXECUTE Homosexuals. Sometimes they hang them, but some are calling for burning them to death.

but we don't apply those bigotted generalizations to ourselves.

Nowadays we have so many people mortally terrified of being labeled politically incorrect that they will call speaking the truth evidence of bigotry.

Actually if you're Christian and are good people, you're probably not good Christians. If you don't believe me, pick up the bible, it's not a book of wholesome stories.

I'm an agnostic myself, but I believe the Christian religion has been very good to it's adherents, giving them a superior society to that of all others which had existed at the time and previously. Christianity created the social stability necessary for scientific development and advancement. Had Europe continued to worship the pagan gods, I doubt we would have ever advanced beyond Roman Technology.

James Burke himself (in his "Connections" series) argued that it was the Catholic Priests and their monasteries that led to the transference of learning across the continent.

[GIThruster]

So incest is OK providing the daughter lies willingly with the father and the father nevr knows?

There's nothing in the passage that says this behavior is okay, Tom. You would make these simple observations if you didn't have an agenda other than getting at the truth. You're acting most irrational. Must be a passionate issue for you for your judgement to be so clouded.

It is implied. There is a due reason, the girl is not punished but saved.

As for the early incest: maybe that being not Ok was all part of original sin? But the Bible does not say this.

I'm sorry but what you consider implied has not been considered so for 3,300 years, and if you want to make up your own meanings and object to them, there's little anyone can do to correct you.

Likewise, if your objection is to what the Bible does not say, I can't answer you as this is an irrational complaint that makes no sense to me. It is quite clear in the law sections that incest is a capital crime. Your manipulations to try to show differently notwithstanding.