Why I am an atheist

[Tassman]

It also has eternal benefits, but I don't see any skeptics using this reasoning to think that it makes religious people do any better than non-religious people. Indeed they seem to think that it doesn't and that religious people are still the same.

At a personal level religious people demonstrably http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0KH2BM20150108

I provided a source above for this.

See above.

[Darth Ovious]

That point is the alleged time of racial separation between Jews and Arabs. However, the Quran itself was written by Mohammed and his followers in the 7th century AD. It was substantially influenced by both the Torah and the Gospels, and the culture of the time he was living. Sharia law is thus based rather heavily on the Torah and the various Levitical laws.

Muslims don't consider Leviticus to be an influence though and that was my point, since they constructed their own laws i.e. Sharia Law. What I did mention was that they took influences from Exodus and Deuteronomy. Their greatest prophet is considered to be Muhammad, who is the basis for Sharia Law.

I agree with Cooper about Assyria. Cooper and I do not agree with Driver and Miles though.

OK

Yes. Driver and Miles think this is a complete ban on homosexuality in Assyrian society. Bottero and Wenham say it isn't, because they think it is only banning rape, since only one person receives punishment, so they think Assyrian society was generally fine with homosexuality. Cooper and myself agree with Bottero and Wenham that it isn't a general ban on homosexuality and think that Assyrian society was generally fine with homosexuality, but we think think their reading of it as referring to rape is wrong, and instead think it's a ban on citizens being penetrated.

The text however mentions this in regards to Lamberts views:

In 20, it is consensual homosexual intercourse that is being condemned, since if rape was meant, the adverb emuqamma "by force" would have been added, as it was for heterosexual rape in 16.

He then says that the Greek text will shine more light on the matter.

In many ancient societies, being sexually penetrated was seen as demeaning. Therefore male were required to penetrate someone of lesser status, eg male slaves, male prostitutes, or women (wives, slaves, or prostitutes). Penetrating a male of high status was not allowed as that was seen as demeaning to the penetrated person. Sexual interactions between two high-status males (which occurred regularly) were required to be non-penetrative (or at least publicly alleged to be non-penetrative). In Greek and Roman societies the bans on the penetration of high-status citizens are well-documented, as is the rather high amounts of homosexual activity that occurred in those societies, especially between male citizens and their male slaves. It's pretty self-evident given that background that the Assyrian law is saying the same thing, which is what Cooper observes.

I think you are missing his conclusion.

Although Greek civic institutions were very different from Assyrian ones, the general attitude toward homosexual acts was similar, namely, that it is shameful to be penetrated by another male, and it is a grave offense to penetrate a fellow citizen, thus shaming him.

If that's not viewing homosexuality in a negative light in general then what is?

Yes, this law about spreading demeaning rumors about a man being penetrated immediately follows a similar law about spreading demeaning rumors that his wife is being penetrated by other men. It's a law against slander.

I don't think your conclusion follows since both laws are in concerns to sexual morality and that is their defining connection.

Our society has laws against libel and slander. Saying false things to defame someone is illegal, but commonly the things they are getting slandered about are not themselves illegal.

So you admit that this is consider slander? Why would calling someone a homosexual be slander if homosexuality was fully accepted?

[Darth Ovious]

Can I just point out that my statement earlier suggested that there wasn't anything the Israelites could do to prevent those deaths. They didn't have the resources to look after more young than they already had, so deaths would have happened anyway. Roy seems to suggest that the deaths were unavoidable. I contest that assessment.

[Darth Ovious]

At a personal level religious people demonstrably http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0KH2BM20150108

Aren't you saying here it is the state using an excuse to carry out the evils that they want to carry out? Surely if they didn't have religion then they could use some other excuse instead like the Communist states did.

See above.

So in essence those in charge had other reasons to do what they did but it's religion that is at fault? The point that I was trying to make was that heretics were trouble makers who made trouble for the ruling class at the time. The things enacted against them were done because the rulers considered them a nuisance not because they were legitimately following any religious text.

[Roy]

That's about private matters where someone goes after you personally. It has nothing to do with matters of war.

Others disagree.

[Roy]

Can I just point out that my statement earlier suggested that there wasn't anything the Israelites could do to prevent those deaths. They didn't have the resources to look after more young than they already had, so deaths would have happened anyway. Roy seems to suggest that the deaths were unavoidable[/i]sic[/i]. I contest that assessment.

No evidence has been provided to support that claim of a shortage of resources. Nor will any evidence ever be provided since it is just a feeble excuse to justify biblical atrocity.

Further, the Bible suggests the exact opposite. In the case of the Midianites, the Israelites did keep half the children alive, and might have kept the other captives alive too if not for Moses' intervention.

Those male children were not killed because of a lack of resources. Darth Ovious is just making that up.

Roy

[Darth Ovious]

Can I just point out that my statement earlier suggested that there wasn't anything the Israelites could do to prevent those deaths. They didn't have the resources to look after more young than they already had, so deaths would have happened anyway. Roy seems to suggest that the deaths were unavoidable. I contest that assessment.

Please change this post to read:

Can I just point out that my statement earlier suggested that there wasn't anything the Israelites could do to prevent those deaths. They didn't have the resources to look after more young than they already had, so deaths would have happened anyway. Roy seems to suggest that the deaths were avoidable. I contest that assessment.

[JonathanL]

Others disagree.

Ok.

[lilpixieofterror]

And the Israelites were also dealing with people that had already been defeated, and the Israelites had previous form in this regard too.Yes.

Do you have any actual evidence that these people had surrendered or are you just reading your assumptions into the belief because you hate Christians and Christianity and will make up any excuse, no matter how absurd, to make your arguments work? We have examples, just in the past century, of cultures fighting against all odds of survival that decided dying was better than surrender. For example, towards the end of WWII, the US has the largest known navy the world had ever seen with a military that was winning battle after battle. Yet the Japanese fought often to the last man, despite the fact they were outnumbered and outgunned. See, here is your problem, you're assuming all cultures would surrender when facing defeat. Even the history of the past century should quickly show you that many people will fight, even when death is almost certain.

"They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man... The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps... 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."

Once all the enemy men are dead, burning the towns and killing the women and children (apart from the virgin girls which can be saved for rape) looks completely unnecessary to me. Do you disagree?
No, I'm exposing the hypocrisy of some-one who opposes abortion on the grounds that it involves killing innocents, yet makes excuses for genocide even though that also involves killing innocents.So you won't answer. No, I would have resisted, although had it been my choice I'd have dropped the nukes near the cities, not on them. I would also have resisted the Israelites who were, as you so aptly put it, "a group of genocidal nut jobs". I see little difference between the atrocities of the Japanese and the atrocities of the Israelites.

No, you're exposing that you read your 21st century western values onto an ancient text and just assume, with no evidence at all, that everybody believes likes you. I know thinking about the Bible is beyond your mental capacity (because your hate of Christians and Christianity keeps you from seeing reality) but what if it was the Midianite's that were the genocidal nut jobs that were bent on killing every last Jew and they were responding to a serious threat to their society? Oh yeah, you wouldn't see it that way because your black/white mentality will not let you see it any other way.

P.S. It is odd that some-one who is so set against seeing the world in black/white would blame everyone in Japan for invading China, especially since history suggests that Japanese animosity was not government policy but the result of a mutiny by part of the army.

Japan only ended up surrendering after being nuked twice, having the USSR invade it's last real source of resources (IE Manchuria) invaded by the USSR, having it's cities bombed into piles of rubble, and facing an allied invasion. Even than, surrender only came after the emperor announced his decision and only after an attempted coup failed. You really need to read your history books more before you say such silly stuff. Japan, by and large, was ran and ruled by fanatics that saw the lives of others as disposable and acted as such.

P.P.S. Do you recall what Jesus said about resisting evil men? I'm sure it wasn't "do it to them before they do it to us".

As Chrawnus already pointed out, that was dealing with personal enemies to us. Not dealing with a group of fanatics that wanted to kill you and your entire family. Unless of course, you'd be willing to let them do what they did to other cities, in your own neighborhood.

[lilpixieofterror]

Others disagree.

Disagreements do not refute the reality of what is in front of us. Unless of course, you'd be willing to invite the Japanese to do what they did in Nanking. Would you?

[tabibito]

Near as I can tell, LPOT has correctly assessed the Biblical record.

[Roy]

Do you have any actual evidence that these people had surrendered or are you just reading your assumptions into the belief because you hate Christians and Christianity and will make up any excuse, no matter how absurd, to make your arguments work?

According to the bible, the Midianite women and children were captives. Either they had surrendered, or they were being forcibly restrained. They were no longer a threat.

See, here is your problem, you're assuming all cultures would surrender when facing defeat.

No, I'm reading biblical verses that say the men did not surrender, but had all been killed; and the remaining women and children had been taken captive.

I know thinking about the Bible is beyond your mental capacity (because your hate of Christians and Christianity keeps you from seeing reality) but what if it was the Midianite's that were the genocidal nut jobs that were bent on killing every last Jew and they were responding to a serious threat to their society?

Have you actually read this part of the bible? I guess not, otherwise you'd know that it describes the Midianites as not being a threat to the Israelites since the Midianites were heavily outnumbered and their initial attempts to curse the Israelites had been thwarted. It also describes the Midianites as intermarrying with the Israelites, and enticing them to switch religions, which isn't really consistent with wanting to kill them all. Perhaps you should do some thinking about the contents of the bible, rather than just assuming that the Israelites were the good guys and conjuring up unfounded excuses for their actions.

Second, the incident I'm referring to is what the Israelites did after they'd already killed all the Midianite men. Are you suggesting the Midianite women and children were a serious threat to the Israelites?

You neglected to answer this: "Once all the enemy men are dead, burning the towns and killing the women and children (apart from the virgin girls which can be saved for rape) looks completely unnecessary to me. Do you disagree?" Well?

Roy

[Roy]

Disagreements do not refute the reality of what is in front of us. Unless of course, you'd be willing to invite the Japanese to do what they did in Nanking. Would you?

Of course not. Would you be willing to invite the Israelites to do what they did in Midian?

In any case, what the Japanese did is irrelevant unless you can show that the Midianites behaved similarly towards the Israelites. Can you?

[tabibito]

However - a look at American activities in Japan, particularly with regard to the deliberate targetting of civilian targets by fire bombing is cause to wonder just who might be justified in taking the moral high ground.

In his 1968 book, reprinted in 1990, historian Gabriel Kolko cited a figure of 125,000 deaths.[21] Elise K. Tipton, professor of Japan studies, arrived at a rough range of 75,000 to 200,000 deaths.[22] Donald L. Miller, citing Knox Burger, stated that there were "at least 100,000" Japanese deaths and "about one million" injured.[23]

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II,[2] greater than Dresden,[24] Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events

Name of Japanese
city firebombed Percentage of the
city destroyed Equivalent in size to
the following American city
Name........%......Equivalent size
Yokohama 58 Cleveland
Tokyo 51 New York
Toyama 99 Chattanooga
Nagoya 40 Los Angeles
Osaka 35.1 Chicago
Nishinomiya 11.9 Cambridge
Siumonoseki 37.6 San Diego
Kure 41.9 Toledo
Kobe 55.7 Baltimore
Omuta 35.8 Miami
Wakayama 50 Salt Lake City
Kawasaki 36.2 Portland
Okayama 68.9 Long Beach
Yawata 21.2 San Antonio
Kagoshima 63.4 Richmond
Amagasaki 18.9 Jacksonville
Sasebo 41.4 Nashville
Moh 23.3 Spokane
Miyakonoio 26.5 Greensboro
Nobeoka 25.2 Augusta
Miyazaki 26.1 Davenport
Hbe 20.7 Utica
Saga 44.2 Waterloo
Imabari 63.9 Stockton
Matsuyama 64 Duluth
Fukui 86 Evansville
Tokushima 85.2 Ft. Wayne
Sakai 48.2 Forth Worth
Hachioji 65 Galveston
Kumamoto 31.2 Grand Rapids
Isezaki 56.7 Sioux Falls
Takamatsu 67.5 Knoxville
Akashi 50.2 Lexington
Fukuyama 80.9 Macon
Aomori 30 Montgomery
Okazaki 32.2 Lincoln
Oita 28.2 Saint Joseph
Hiratsuka 48.4 Battle Creek
Tokuyama 48.3 Butte
Yokkichi 33.6 Charlotte
Uhyamada 41.3 Columbus
Ogaki 39.5 Corpus Christi
Gifu 63.6 Des Moines
Shizuoka 66.1 Oklahoma City
Himeji 49.4 Peoria
Fukuoka 24.1 Rochester
Kochi 55.2 Sacramento
Shimizu 42 San Jose
Omura 33.1 Sante Fe
Chiba 41 Savannah
Ichinomiya 56.3 Sprinfield
Nara 69.3 Boston
Tsu 69.3 Topeka
Kuwana 75 Tucson
Toyohashi 61.9 Tulsa
Numazu 42.3 Waco
Chosi 44.2 Wheeling
Kofu 78.6 South Bend
Utsunomiya 43.7 Sioux City
Mito 68.9 Pontiac
Sendai 21.9 Omaha
Tsuruga 65.1 Middleton
Nagaoka 64.9 Madison
Hitachi 72 Little Rock
Kumagaya 55.1 Kenosha
Hamamatsu 60.3 Hartford
Maebashi 64.2 Wheeling

[lilpixieofterror]

According to the bible, the Midianite women and children were captives. Either they had surrendered, or they were being forcibly restrained. They were no longer a threat.

Yep because everybody knows that a captured people are no threat and will never be a threat in the future. If you believe that, there's some ocean front property I'll sell you on the moon for very cheap. I'm sorry, but actual history should teach you that captured or conquered people can indeed be a threat and have rebelled several times throughout history as we saw in the first century when the Jews rebelled against their Roman oppressors. Now, do you have any actual evidence that people's of that era thought and acted the same way that people's of this century act or is your hatred of Christians and Christianity blocking your logic and reasoning? Now again Roy, I want evidence, not piles of assertions and attempting to pretend that people of the past acted and believe the same as they do today. They didn't, so stop pretending they did.

No, I'm reading biblical verses that say the men did not surrender, but had all been killed; and the remaining women and children had been taken captive.

And they wouldn't have rebelled against the Jews because... (this is where you give an actual reason vs your black/white mentality where you assume people's of the past are the same as they are today).

Have you actually read this part of the bible? I guess not, otherwise you'd know that it describes the Midianites as not being a threat to the Israelites since the Midianites were heavily outnumbered and their initial attempts to curse the Israelites had been thwarted. It also describes the Midianites as intermarrying with the Israelites, and enticing them to switch religions, which isn't really consistent with wanting to kill them all. Perhaps you should do some thinking about the contents of the bible, rather than just assuming that the Israelites were the good guys and conjuring up unfounded excuses for their actions.

How adorable, pretending as though your assertions become true because you can quote passages, but refuse to engage that rock, you call a brain, into analysis where you analyze the passages in question and stop reading your narrow and bigoted opinion into the text. I know your little fundy brain is overloading, but perhaps you should drop your hatred of Christians and Jews for a second and engage that rock you call a brain and think vs emotionally react. You're trying to make the Midianites into victims and failing to read what the Bible actually says. Here is just a few things the record says they did:

Whenever the Israelites planted their crops, the Midianites, Amalekites and other eastern peoples invaded the country. Judges 6:3, NIV

You seem to forget that the wars of the ancient past were frequently filled with stuff of this measure as well as exaggerations about totally destroying their enemies. Do you have any evidence that the Midianites were innocent victims of the mean Jews or are you trying to ignore the stuff you don't like and only posting parts you do like? It's like bringing up that the US nuked two Japanese cities, while ignoring that the Japanese attacked America first and started the war and the US was only responding in kind to protect itself and its interest from a country dedicated to its destruction. I'm sorry that I will not let you rewrite history in your image, but stop ignoring what you don't want to hear.

Second, the incident I'm referring to is what the Israelites did after they'd already killed all the Midianite men. Are you suggesting the Midianite women and children were a serious threat to the Israelites?

Yep because we all know that women and children can't kill people or that they wouldn't have seeked revenge for their defeat. Your hatred seems to be blocking all of your logic. The Germans and Japanese both were using children soldiers, men and women, towards the end of WWII. Are you seriously going to say that a women manning a gun or a kid with a rifle isn't a serious threat to the life of a man? If you believe that, I got land to sell you on Mars.

You neglected to answer this: "Once all the enemy men are dead, burning the towns and killing the women and children (apart from the virgin girls which can be saved for rape) looks completely unnecessary to me. Do you disagree?" Well?

I answered quite well. Your black/white little brain is incapable of understanding the concept of degrees. Ancient people are not the same as we are, stop assuming they are.