The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: ElTrancy on May 10, 2018, 02:44:24 PM
-
A lot of people have misconceptions of Atheism. Would anyone mind telling me what they think it is?
-
This is an incredibly low-effort thread.
The majority of regulars here are atheist or agnostic. They will also recognize that this is a really dumb question, so I'd be surprised if you get much response.
-
This is an incredibly low-effort thread.
The majority of regulars here are atheist or agnostic. They will also recognize that this is a really dumb question, so I'd be surprised if you get much response.
Good point, poof, irrelevant!
-
I suppose I am an atheist, although I stopped calling myself such largely to avoid being associated with new atheist morons (I much prefer being my own moron). I am interested in connecting on some level with Christianity because it has shaped so much of the history and culture of western civilisation, but I mostly read novels, so getting into histories and people like Augustine and Aquinas would perhaps take a bit of work, not to mention the KJV itself.
Misconceptions about atheism come from smug pop-sci goons like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and the would-be enlightened who revere them. It's simply a lack of belief in a creator deity or deities, it doesn't need to be an organised movement or a merch platform. The only places that really need atheist activism today are the theocracies of the Islamic world, and even then it should be subsumed into general human rights activism.
Also junker is right as usual.
-
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer
-
Atheism is a lack of belief in God. I am not an atheist.
-
An atheist is a person who hasn't experienced the numinous, and who mistakenly thinks this means it doesn't exist. ;)
-
This atheist is a person who hasn't experienced the numinous, and therefore looks for further proof, sees none, but perceives much that indicates that deity/deities do not exist, further more if they did, would have huge misgivings about the enforced contract he is supposed to live by, not least as throughout his life hasn’t met a single acolyte who wholly agreed with any of the others, as such he lives quite happily without them/it.
-
Question is, where is the atheist looking?
And what is this "contract" you speak of? I've never come across one.
-
I have looked everywhere, and all the "evidence" given by those who are religious make almost no sense. If a god wanted us to believe in them, then it would probably want to start with making things super clear that is was there.
-
I look amongst the flowers and stones, amongst the crawling things and the birds, I listen on the winds and the laughter of children, I watch the clouds and the stars for signs, but see none.
As for the contract, well that depends on who I am debating with, but for the standard (Christian) it goes something like.
God sends his son to die for my sins (note, committed before I was conceived), when I die what is left of me goes one of two places dependant on my life’s choices, being just good doesn’t cut it, I must worship my maker and put him above all others and in some cases atone for the aforementioned sins. Bad choices mean I go to hell and have an eternity being tortured, no time off for good behaviour.
-
I look amongst the flowers and stones, amongst the crawling things and the birds, I listen on the winds and the laughter of children, I watch the clouds and the stars for signs, but see none.
As for the contract, well that depends on who I am debating with, but for the standard (Christian) it goes something like.
God sends his son to die for my sins (note, committed before I was conceived), when I die what is left of me goes one of two places dependant on my life’s choices, being just good doesn’t cut it, I must worship my maker and put him above all others and in some cases atone for the aforementioned sins. Bad choices mean I go to hell and have an eternity being tortured, no time off for good behaviour.
The key takeaway from Christianity is that everyone sins and can be forgiven for those sins. Hell is reserved for those who actively refuse god, not simply people who sin (since that is everyone). That's why I'm agnostic, just in case.
-
I have looked everywhere.
How deep have you gone into your own being?
How many meditation retreats have you done? How many vision quests? Et cetera.
If a god wanted us to believe in them, then it would probably want to start with making things super clear that is was there.
So maybe the most logical answer to that is that God has no urgent desire for us to believe in them.
I look amongst the flowers and stones, amongst the crawling things and the birds, I listen on the winds and the laughter of children, I watch the clouds and the stars for signs, but see none.
Maybe you haven't looked hard enough. Or don't really want it.
As for the contract, well that depends on who I am debating with, but for the standard (Christian) it goes something like: God sends his son to die for my sins (note, committed before I was conceived), when I die what is left of me goes one of two places dependent on my life’s choices, being just good doesn’t cut it, I must worship my maker and put him above all others and in some cases atone for the aforementioned sins. Bad choices mean I go to hell and have an eternity being tortured, no time off for good behaviour.
While that's a rather simplified and shallow example of a "standard Christian" - and probably not representative of most Christians, let alone most Theists - I do understand that there are people who feel that way.
Those people are mistaken in their theology.
The key takeaway from Christianity is that everyone sins and can be forgiven for those sins. Hell is reserved for those who actively refuse god, not simply people who sin (since that is everyone). That's why I'm agnostic, just in case.
In 1999, Pope John Paul (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html) said that, "rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language."
He's very clear: hell is not a place people go to - that is symbolism - but rather a state of being, and a state which arises from separation.
He says "separation from God", but I would go further than that. I would say, for 'connection with God' read: a connection with something greater than ourselves, or with the deepest and truest part of ourselves, or with the deepest and truest parts of others.
To paraphrase: "hell indicates the state of those who live lives separate from themselves, from others, from their own truth, and from any sense of 'Sacred Unity'; while heaven indicates the state of those who live lives connected to themselves, to others, to their own highest truth and purpose of being, and perhaps even to something larger than themselves."
We've all "felt like hell", or felt that "life is hell" at certain moments. And we've all had the experience of being aligned and connected to ourselves and our purpose; living in accordance with our noblest truths; and connecting with others, with nature, and, if we're lucky, something deep inside, that seems beyond words - and that "feels like heaven".
So hell is not so much about rejecting God, or a place we might up end after we die, but about rejecting the good things in life, and a state of being we can experience right now, if we choose.
Something like that. ;)
-
As for the contract, well that depends on who I am debating with, but for the standard (Christian) it goes something like: God sends his son to die for my sins (note, committed before I was conceived), when I die what is left of me goes one of two places dependent on my life’s choices, being just good doesn’t cut it, I must worship my maker and put him above all others and in some cases atone for the aforementioned sins. Bad choices mean I go to hell and have an eternity being tortured, no time off for good behaviour.
While that's a rather simplified and shallow example of a "standard Christian" - and probably not representative of most Christians, let alone most Theists - I do understand that there are people who feel that way.
Those people are mistaken in their theology.
The "No true scotman" fallacy at work. The doctrine of original sin and the conception of hell are not really being misrepresented here.[/quote]
In 1999, Pope John Paul (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html) said that, "rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language."
He's very clear: hell is not a place people go to - that is symbolism - but rather a state of being, and a state which arises from separation.
He says "separation from God", but I would go further than that. I would say, for 'connection with God' read: a connection with something greater than ourselves, or with the deepest and truest part of ourselves, or with the deepest and truest parts of others.
To paraphrase: "hell indicates the state of those who live lives separate from themselves, from others, from their own truth, and from any sense of 'Sacred Unity'; while heaven indicates the state of those who live lives connected to themselves, to others, to their own highest truth and purpose of being, and perhaps even to something larger than themselves."
We've all "felt like hell", or felt that "life is hell" at certain moments. And we've all had the experience of being aligned and connected to ourselves and our purpose; living in accordance with our noblest truths; and connecting with others, with nature, and, if we're lucky, something deep inside, that seems beyond words - and that "feels like heaven".
So hell is not so much about rejecting God, or a place we might up end after we die, but about rejecting the good things in life, and a state of being we can experience right now, if we choose.
Something like that. ;)
The new pope went further than that to walk back traditional presentations of hell saying that unrepentant and unforgivable souls simply vanish. Problem with that is that these men are claiming to have a profound knowledge of the universe based simply on the cardinals voting them in. I find using the pope as a source of metaphysical knowledge to be totally unreliable. Is there some reason I should believe them? When they disagree, who should we defer to?
-
See, there it is Max, another version, someone else with the way, visions and meditation, to find “a god who has no urgent desire for us to believe in him”, and the others are “mistaken in their theology”
He doesn't want it, I don't want it, let's call the whole thing off.
-
I find using the pope as a source of metaphysical knowledge to be totally unreliable...
Ah, but I wasn't using John Paul II as a source of metaphysical knowledge, but rather as an example and a representative of a Christian mindset.
I also read a little about where that quote from the new pope came from: apparently from a 93-year-old atheist journalist who transcribes all his interviews from memory.
I'm not saying Pope Francis didn't say that. Though he hasn't yet back it up, and the Vatican has denied he would have said something like that.
As for the "no true Scotsmen": of course some Christians belive in "original sin" and a "literal hell" where unbelievers go after they die - but not all Christians believe that. And I'd be on the side of saying that's what the minority of Christians believe. But that's just hazarding a guess.
Though, any way, the original point was about the "contract" between God and us. I said there was no such thing. It was answered that "standard Christians" felt there was. And I said they were mistaken.
I'll stand by that. :)
-
He doesn't want it, I don't want it, let's call the whole thing off.
Just as I guessed at above. ;)
-
I find using the pope as a source of metaphysical knowledge to be totally unreliable...
Ah, but I wasn't using John Paul II as a source of metaphysical knowledge, but rather as an example and a representative of a Christian mindset.
Westboro Baptist’s are also representative of a Christian mindset.
I also read a little about where that quote from the new pope came from: apparently from a 93-year-old atheist journalist who transcribes all his interviews from memory.
I'm not saying Pope Francis didn't say that. Though he hasn't yet back it up, and the Vatican has denied he would have said something like that.
All I am saying is that Pope’s probably agree on some things and disagree on others, so what Pope John Paul II had to say is not particularly relevant.
As for the "no true Scotsmen": of course some Christians belive in "original sin" and a "literal hell" where unbelievers go after they die - but not all Christians believe that. And I'd be on the side of saying that's what the minority of Christians believe. But that's just hazarding a guess.
Great. A guess.
Though, any way, the original point was about the "contract" between God and us. I said there was no such thing. It was answered that "standard Christians" felt there was. And I said they were mistaken.
It’s fine for you to say there is no such thing but since you have no reasonable way of substantiating that position it isn’t worth much is it? If you go by the Bible, then it is painfully obvious that there is such a contract. The question is how much cherry-picking are you comfortable with?
-
Maybe God told me there was no such thing. ;)
PS I agree with you on everything else.
-
But that's just hazarding a guess.
Great. A guess.
And I said they were mistaken.
If you go by the Bible, then it is painfully obvious that there is such a contract. The question is how much cherry-picking are you comfortable with?
Maybe God told me there was no such thing. ;)
And that’s the nub of it for me, seriously, when I was in my early teens I figured that if there was a god it was a bigger deal than just going to church every now and then, so I looked.
I read a great deal, talked to Christians and apart from the lack of any consensus on important (to me) things like hell, forgiveness, Hell, is the bible advice or instruction, HELL! I just found/felt nothing.
So then having been a bit put out at the injustice that our (Christian) hell was actually open to all the other religions but the heaven bit wasn’t, I looked at Eastern religions, loved the Buddhism but still nothing, long story short I then read Dawkins and Nietzsche and found my home.
-
That's nice. :)
Question: when you "looked at Buddhism and Eastern religions" did you do much practice, or did you just read about them?
-
So then having been a bit put out at the injustice that our (Christian) hell was actually open to all the other religions but the heaven bit wasn’t
Isn't that just another way of saying that only one religion can be right?
Which is obvious, isn't it? That's just logic.
Christians, Jews and Muslims all have contradictory beliefs about who Jesus was. They can't all be right.
They could all be wrong, but they can't all be right.
It's all nice and fuzzy to think that "well, you believe that and that's OK for you but I believe this..."
But if what you believe and I believe contradict one another then we cannot both be right. Truth isn't relative.
Jesus either was who He said He was or He wasn't,
He was either crucified or He wasn't (Muslims believe wasn't),
He was either resurrected or He wasn't (think Jews believe wasn't).
These last two are historical events which either occurred or didn't, there is nothing relative about that.
Westboro Baptist’s are also representative of a Christian mindset.
Well, they claim to be Christians so in that sense I guess you're correct.
I don't think there is any sensible understanding of Jesus' teachings which you could say they are following though.
-
Westboro Baptist’s are also representative of a Christian mindset.
Well, they claim to be Christians so in that sense I guess you're correct.
I don't think there is any sensible understanding of Jesus' teachings which you could say they are following though.
Per Jesus' instructions, they also honor the teachings of the Old Testament. Perhaps you haven't tried hard enough to understand them well enough?
-
Westboro Baptist’s are also representative of a Christian mindset.
Well, they claim to be Christians so in that sense I guess you're correct.
I don't think there is any sensible understanding of Jesus' teachings which you could say they are following though.
Per Jesus' instructions, they also honor the teachings of the Old Testament. Perhaps you haven't tried hard enough to understand them well enough?
TL;DR...Sermon on the Mount. You have heard it said...but I tell you...
-
It's all nice and fuzzy to think that "well, you believe that and that's OK for you but I believe this..."
But if what you believe and I believe contradict one another then we cannot both be right. Truth isn't relative..
But that is the big problem, you see god is a tricksy little bugger by all accounts, look what he did to Adam & Eve, unfair. But then in the old test’ he was all in your face helping out with the genocides and such and now he’s all silent again and you have to get mystic Max to find him.
That’s if you’re on the right track and he’s not some Polynesian deity made from coconuts sitting there chortling, “you are so fucked when the great tsunami happens”.
I’m done with it, unless he rocks up and says “this is the deal Jura” he/she/it can take a hike, I’m betting on a celestial underworld of souls that don’t want to sing for eternity but would rather play cribbage, I’ll find them.
-
It's all nice and fuzzy to think that "well, you believe that and that's OK for you but I believe this..."
But if what you believe and I believe contradict one another then we cannot both be right. Truth isn't relative..
But that is the big problem, you see god is a tricksy little bugger by all accounts, look what he did to Adam & Eve, unfair.
I'm failing to see how it was unfair.
But then in the old test’ he was all in your face helping out with the genocides and such and now he’s all silent again and you have to get mystic Max to find him.
That's because back then, it took an "in your face" approach to show who is the true god. Back then, Satan operated in an overt fashion where you would see things like true magic, manifestations, and supernatural powers. Today Satan operates in a covert fashion. Think about it, if the average person were to witness things that defy all known physics and science, he would most likely turn away from Satan's grasp. So since Satan doesn't work overtly, God doesn't either.
That’s if you’re on the right track and he’s not some Polynesian deity made from coconuts sitting there chortling, “you are so fucked when the great tsunami happens”.
I’m done with it, unless he rocks up and says “this is the deal Jura” he/she/it can take a hike, I’m betting on a celestial underworld of souls that don’t want to sing for eternity but would rather play cribbage, I’ll find them.
That's your decision to make.
-
I'm failing to see how it was unfair.
So, you make a couple with a propensity to steal fruit (you know that cos’ you’re god and you made them, right), Then you say everything but the apples (why?), and just in case they might have fought the inclination you programmed in, you allow/send a snake to make sure, then you (god) throw a hissy when surprise-surprise a Granny-Smith goes missing, unfair- rigged.
So, since Satan doesn't work overtly, God doesn't either.
Lame, more tricks, either he wants to save us, or he doesn’t, why is he letting the “bringer of light” set the rules?
Essentially the deal seems to be;
“Jura, you will jump through hoops I have set up, you will do so with a personality I have given you that rails against tyrants, I will hide and set up conflicting religions and multiple alternative expressions of the rule-book, that is itself vague and contradictory and allow a being of immense intellect and resources free reign to confuse and mislead. If by some chance you decide to put aside the obvious fact I am a megalomaniacal narcissist, I will consent to let you sing my praises for the rest of time, if not endless torture or oblivion with no chance of parole, signed your Psychopathic Magnificence.
Ps, I already know what you are going to do, I’m god, you are a rat in a maze.”
Nope, I’ll have the cribbage.
-
1. Interesting aside: it doesn't actually say what kind of fruit it was in the Garden of Eden, the idea of the apple probably comes from European paintings. More likely it was a fig (if a made-up fruit in a made-up story could be said to be "more likely" one thing or the other.)
2. Indeed, that whole Old Testament God is so weird and illogical, he's not really anyone to look up to. At the very least, one would hope that he'd be smarter and more fair than the average human. But OTG is rather a representation of what them old Jews thought way back when - so I think we can safely dismiss their ideas as being inaccurate.
3. Why would God want to save us? And what does that even mean? Much better to let people figure things out for themselves, in their own time - and to be there to lend a hand when they ask for it or are in dire need.
4. Lol at your summary of a stereotypical Judeo-Christian interpretation of God: very insane. It really is amazing people choose to buy into that, given free will and all. ;)
-
Yet if you read “Guns & God” Luke above….I can only work with what I’m given.
-
I'm failing to see how it was unfair.
So, you make a couple with a propensity to steal fruit (you know that cos’ you’re god and you made them, right), Then you say everything but the apples (why?), and just in case they might have fought the inclination you programmed in, you allow/send a snake to make sure, then you (god) throw a hissy when surprise-surprise a Granny-Smith goes missing, unfair- rigged.
God made us to have free chioce. When he created Adam and Eve he didn't created them with any inclination other than the free will to choose. Before they sinned they had no knowledge of sin.
So, since Satan doesn't work overtly, God doesn't either.
Lame, more tricks, either he wants to save us, or he doesn’t, why is he letting the “bringer of light” set the rules?
Essentially the deal seems to be;
“Jura, you will jump through hoops I have set up, you will do so with a personality I have given you that rails against tyrants, I will hide and set up conflicting religions and multiple alternative expressions of the rule-book, that is itself vague and contradictory and allow a being of immense intellect and resources free reign to confuse and mislead. If by some chance you decide to put aside the obvious fact I am a megalomaniacal narcissist, I will consent to let you sing my praises for the rest of time, if not endless torture or oblivion with no chance of parole, signed your Psychopathic Magnificence.
Ps, I already know what you are going to do, I’m god, you are a rat in a maze.”
Nope, I’ll have the cribbage.
The Bible (particularly the KJV in English) is not contradictory and while there are some things that I don't understand, most of what it is in the Bible is rather simple to follow.
-
I'm failing to see how it was unfair.
So, you make a couple with a propensity to steal fruit (you know that cos’ you’re god and you made them, right), Then you say everything but the apples (why?), and just in case they might have fought the inclination you programmed in, you allow/send a snake to make sure, then you (god) throw a hissy when surprise-surprise a Granny-Smith goes missing, unfair- rigged.
God made us to have free chioce. When he created Adam and Eve he didn't created them with any inclination other than the free will to choose. Before they sinned they had no knowledge of sin.
You’ve been through this before. If God is omniscient then there is no Free Will. They are mutually exclusive ideas.
So, since Satan doesn't work overtly, God doesn't either.
Lame, more tricks, either he wants to save us, or he doesn’t, why is he letting the “bringer of light” set the rules?
Essentially the deal seems to be;
“Jura, you will jump through hoops I have set up, you will do so with a personality I have given you that rails against tyrants, I will hide and set up conflicting religions and multiple alternative expressions of the rule-book, that is itself vague and contradictory and allow a being of immense intellect and resources free reign to confuse and mislead. If by some chance you decide to put aside the obvious fact I am a megalomaniacal narcissist, I will consent to let you sing my praises for the rest of time, if not endless torture or oblivion with no chance of parole, signed your Psychopathic Magnificence.
Ps, I already know what you are going to do, I’m god, you are a rat in a maze.”
Nope, I’ll have the cribbage.
The Bible (particularly the KJV in English) is not contradictory and while there are some things that I don't understand, most of what it is in the Bible is rather simple to follow.
[/quote]
If it’s not contradictory then tell me, does the Bible tell you that stoning your children for disobedience is wrong or right?
-
You’ve been through this before. If God is omniscient then there is no Free Will. They are mutually exclusive ideas.
This is a misunderstanding of omniscience. Knowing everything doesn't mean one can "pierce the veil of time" so to speak. If you read the Bible, you can clearly see that while God is capable of knowing everything that is going on simultaneously (or at least appears to do so), God cannot directly predict the future (at least in a way that is 100% accurate). If we accept that the future doesn't really exist yet, then it's easy to accept that knowing about something that doesn't exist doesn't inherently make any sense.
This is also seen in the fable of Noah's ark. God flooded the world and wreaked genocide on nearly the entire human race, saw what He had done, and then realized how terrible it was. That story really doesn't make any sense at all if God already knew how terrible it would be.
-
Free will doesn't exist in a scientific sense. If God created all our internal and external influences, then he (I'm not going to capitalize the pronouns, because that's stupid) essentially mapped out our behavior.
-
Why is a discussion on atheism talking about the Bible, and in particular the old testament?
The old testament is a collection of some very old and outdated ideas of God. I think we're all pretty clear that Adam and Eve didn't literally exist, so I'm not sure how useful they can be as examples.
On contradictions:
http://youtu.be/RB3g6mXLEKk
-
I'm failing to see how it was unfair.
So, you make a couple with a propensity to steal fruit (you know that cos’ you’re god and you made them, right), Then you say everything but the apples (why?), and just in case they might have fought the inclination you programmed in, you allow/send a snake to make sure, then you (god) throw a hissy when surprise-surprise a Granny-Smith goes missing, unfair- rigged.
God made us to have free chioce. When he created Adam and Eve he didn't created them with any inclination other than the free will to choose. Before they sinned they had no knowledge of sin.
You’ve been through this before. If God is omniscient then there is no Free Will. They are mutually exclusive ideas.
So, since Satan doesn't work overtly, God doesn't either.
Lame, more tricks, either he wants to save us, or he doesn’t, why is he letting the “bringer of light” set the rules?
Essentially the deal seems to be;
“Jura, you will jump through hoops I have set up, you will do so with a personality I have given you that rails against tyrants, I will hide and set up conflicting religions and multiple alternative expressions of the rule-book, that is itself vague and contradictory and allow a being of immense intellect and resources free reign to confuse and mislead. If by some chance you decide to put aside the obvious fact I am a megalomaniacal narcissist, I will consent to let you sing my praises for the rest of time, if not endless torture or oblivion with no chance of parole, signed your Psychopathic Magnificence.
Ps, I already know what you are going to do, I’m god, you are a rat in a maze.”
Nope, I’ll have the cribbage.
The Bible (particularly the KJV in English) is not contradictory and while there are some things that I don't understand, most of what it is in the Bible is rather simple to follow.
If it’s not contradictory then tell me, does the Bible tell you that stoning your children for disobedience is wrong or right?
The disobedience that qualifies for stoning isn't Johnny writing on the wall with his crayon set. The disobedience is on a level that the child is constantly committing high level crimes.
-
That is absolutely your own interpretation, taking complete liberties with what is written in Deuteronomy 21:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Nothing in there about "high level crimes", merely: being stubborn, being rebellious, not listening, overeating, and being a drunk.
I think we all know what "stubborn" and "rebellious" look like.
Also is the implication that you must carry out the stoning so that "all Israel will hear of it" - presumably by posting a notice in a Jewish newspaper or something.
The next chapter, by the way, includes God's detestation of transvestites, the commandment to build parapets on your roofs, and instructions to not wear wool and linen at the same time - I hope you've done all them - plus what to do to people who rape virgins:
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
This is the word of the Lord. Amen.
-
That is absolutely your own interpretation, taking complete liberties with what is written in Deuteronomy 21:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
Nothing in there about "high level crimes", merely: being stubborn, being rebellious, not listening, overeating, and being a drunk.
I think we all know what "stubborn" and "rebellious" look like.
Also is the implication that you must carry out the stoning so that "all Israel will hear of it" - presumably by posting a notice in a Jewish newspaper or something.
We know what "rebellious" means and looks like now, however that doesn't mean it always meant that way. We have many words that changed meanings and usage as time past.
The next chapter, by the way, includes God's detestation of transvestites, the commandment to build parapets on your roofs, and instructions to not wear wool and linen at the same time - I hope you've done all them - plus what to do to people who rape virgins:
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
This is the word of the Lord. Amen.
This is only enforceable by government. This isn't something the individual can take into his own hands.
-
So you're saying we have to interpret these words ourselves, to figure out what they really mean?
Can't argue with that.
How do you interpret the last one: "If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin he must pay a fine to her father and marry her and never divorce her"?
-
Free will doesn't exist in a scientific sense. If God created all our internal and external influences, then he (I'm not going to capitalize the pronouns, because that's stupid) essentially mapped out our behavior.
This is unprovable, because it would require that you have two universes which are identical in order to prove that the same variables always result in the same outcome. We already know, thanks to quantum mechanics, that the universe has quite a lot of unpredictable mechanisms under the surface. There's no evidence that two people, with exactly the same biological and universal structure, would always choose the same choices, because the probability of them doing so is not 100%.
In order to argue that there is no free will, you must argue that the universe is deterministic. You can't prove that it's deterministic, so arguing that there is no free will is at best just you guessing.
-
So you're saying we have to interpret these words ourselves, to figure out what they really mean?
God promised to preserve his word, not our English language. While most things stay the same, some terms and phrases have changed meaning over the years.
Can't argue with that.
How do you interpret the last one: "If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin he must pay a fine to her father and marry her and never divorce her"?
From the KJV it says:
28
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which not not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her and they be found:
29
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 of his days.
Now in context, this is right after the commandment that if a man rapes a woman in the field, and she cried out but no one heard or in the city and she cried out and nobody heard, he should be put to death. If the Bible is infallible then it wouldn't make sense to give two punishments for the same crime especially one right after the other. So if we are to assume that the Bible is infallible then the logical conclusion is that this isn't talking about the same crime. This is most likely talking about fornication, i.e. a consensual act and that "lay hold" had a different connotation than what we ascribe to it now.